From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 02:27:33 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge)
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 06:12:07 GMT
Matthew T. Russotto writes:
> If the peril exists, the authorities have won. What they have then
> done is made someone else responsible for a person's actions.
> It's a perfect tactic because it works only against ethical persons,
> and the authorities have no ethics themselves. You've seen the tactic
> before, in instances ranging from grammar school to the dramshop laws.
"the authories" don't exist as a group you can define to that extent.
In any case, the peril that attaches to a sytem administrator on whose
system someone posts child pornography does not stem from "the authorities"
who know the net; it comes from the public who don't understand the
nature of the net, and 99% of whom would honestly (if wrongly) see a
news group like alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children as a "child
pornography ring" and react accordingly.
No "evil conspiracy" exists. Only a solid reality: some of the things
we do, some of the information we transmit can have real and harmful
results. Only we, you and I and the other residents, not some imaginary
power crazies can convince the public (the real and ultimate authorities)
that we represent a threat to innocent people.
[ argument about anarchy deleted ]
> It implies the absense of any enforced responsibility or solidarity.
Did I say I wanted it "enforced"?
Look, actions have consequences. Anarchy can't repeal the law of gravity;
if I jump off the CN tower, I can expect to splat at the bottom. If I
convince the people around me I represent a threat to them, they'll take
steps to deal with that threat.
If we persist in ignoring the real consequences of our actions, if
we invent conspiracies of the "politically correct", or "power-crazy
authorities" to explain it, we will create the very results we could
expect from the imaginary monsters we create.
I don't want a net.cop with the power to revoke accounts and network
access. I do want a real discussion, grounded on the principle that
everyone has rights, not just the people on the net, and when people
raise concerns about things like child pornography on the net, we
should respond with something besides a label and a dismissal.
> They don't care about any social danger-- they care only for their
> increasing their own power. They use the language of social danger in
> order to recruit others to their cause, and to justify themselves to
> those who might object.
You have no evidence (nor can you have) about anybody's "real" motive,
or about what they care about. You can only invalidate their concerns by
showing that the danger doesn't really exist.
> If we respond to the threat by "behaving with a minimum
> of responsibility", they HAVE won. Their mere threat has succeeded in
> constraining our behaviour.
No! You keep missing the point. We shouldn't need the "threat". We should
behave responsibly because we have the freedom to do so. We should at
least say: I chose to do X because... instead of accusing people who
criticise us of "plotting" to take away our "freedom".
Look, right now you don't have the freedom you think you do, because
your imaginary "power-crazed authorities" make it impossible for you
to take real responsibility for your actions. I can stand up and say
"I consider this irresponsible" because I have not succumbed to fear
of some vast politically correct/power crazed conspiracy which "wins"
if I behave decently. The imaginary "conspiracy" (which really boils
down to some decent, concerned people with little information about
how the net works) already controlls you almost completely.
> Don't you see what they are trying to do? If we agree that child
> pornography and violation of copyright are bad things, they will then
> argue that these things must be prevented, and we will have no choice
> but to agree. At that point, there will have to be an method of
> preventing them, and that means a real formal power structure. Once there is a
> such power structure in the net, the authorities can use it in any
> manner they please.
Don't you see that YOU have already submitted to mind control? If
you want to disagree that child pornography and copyright violations
cause real harm, then do so as a free person; stand up and make your
argument on moral and rational grounds. Answer Ms. Prevost-Derbecker;
don't just write her off as one of "them".
As it stands, you have invented a conspiracy of control freaks, and
then turned control over to them.
> But do you really want REAL net.police with the power to eliminate
> such freedom?
No, I don't. I don't think we will ever see such net.police. We may see
moves (actually, we have seen moves) to shut of net access to entire
categories of users (undergrads come to mind) because of irresponsible
behaviour (actual disruption of the work of other people, harrassment,
etc.).
I would rather see people address the arguments as they come.
Try network freedom, and such news groups as alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
should continue, despite copyright and child pornography concerns, because...
What we have instead boils down to: go away you power-crazed, politically
correct, censorship-loving person we've never met but whose motives we
know beyond a doubt. When we do that, we don't address the argument; we don't
stand up for our freedoms; we just hunker down, hurl abuse, whine about our
inevitable loss, and wait for the "authorities" to take it away from us.
John G. Spragge --- spraggej@jeff-lab.queensu.ca --- standard disclaimers apply
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 08:47:01 1993
From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Wanted: Assertiveness Training for Cyberspace
Date: 2 Aug 1993 12:45:03 GMT
Message-ID: <23j28f$q1b@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
In article gjb@fig.citib.com (Greg Brail) writes:
> However, I don't think asking FAQ-like questions is one of the bigger
> problems of Usenet. Sure, I'd prefer that people read it, and I'm
>...
> Personally, I'm more disturbed by unnecessarily obnoxious answers to
> newbie questions than by the questions themselves. Lots of people come
> to Usenet for information. If we don't scare them away in the first
> five minutes, perhaps they'll stick around and contribute something
> the rest of us will really appreciate.
But the 'source for information' nature of a newsgroup can be hurt by
too many people asking too many FAQs. Just look at comp.os.linux and
figure out why it has become the second largest group by number of
articles, and the worst write-only group as well (approx. 80% of all
postings never get any followups, my estimation).
I know from own experience how tired one can get from answering the
very same questions over and over. It gets worse when the FAQ
documents get so awfully large that noone dares to read them any more.
Olaf
--
olaf titz o olaf@bigred.ka.sub.org praetorius@irc
comp.sc.student _>\ _ s_titz@ira.uka.de LINUX - the choice
karlsruhe germany (_)<(_) uknf@dkauni2.bitnet of a GNU generation
what good is a photograph of you? everytime i look at it it makes me feel blue
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 10:17:01 1993
From: 00hfstahlke@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Where's the "Banned Computer Uses" list?
Message-ID: <1993Aug2.083759.21135@bsu-ucs>
Date: 2 Aug 93 13:37:59 GMT
This year I seem to have missed the compilation, that Carl has published in the
past, of actions that have challenged electronic freedom of expression. The
last such list that I saw was posted during National Library Week, as a
counterpart to the NLW banned book list, I believe. It was that list that
introduced me to this newsgroup because Ball State, thanks to a combination of
alphabetic order and a bright and rebellious high school student, took top
billing. Have I simply missed the list, Carl, or have you been neglecting an
opportunity to get flamed?
Herb Stahlke
============================================================================
Herbert F. W. Stahlke (317) 285-1843
Associate Director (317) 285-1797 (fax)
University Computing Services 00hfstahlke@virgo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306 00hfstahlke@bsuvax1.bitnet
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 10:17:29 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.general] Sexual Harassment and Women in Engineering
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 14:08:22 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 10:17:29 1993
From: winslett@cs.uiuc.edu (Marianne Winslett)
Subject: Sexual Harassment and Women in Engineering
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 21:26:45 GMT
Earlier this week I read the postings from the thread about
sexual harassment in this newsgroup---or rather, the postings
that had not already expired by that time.
To learn more about how women and girls come to choose or not
choose engineering as a profession, and what they and others
perceive as the climate for women in engineering, I know of
no better source than the MIT CS Tech Report #1315, by Ellen
Spertus, titled *Why are there so few female computer
scientists?*, and already mentioned by another poster.
This report describes many factors common to all branches of
engineering, in spite of its more specific title. The report is
available by anonymous ftp in postscript or ascii format from MIT.
Here are instructions:
1. Change to a directory, such as /usr/tmp, with plenty of
free space.
2. Type: ftp ftp.ai.mit.edu, or, if that fails, ftp 128.52.32.6
3. At login prompt, type: anonymous
4. For password, enter your user name (or any string)
5. Type: cd pub/ellens
6. Type: mget womcs*.ps, replying y to the prompts.
The report is approximately a hundred pages of highly readable
summaries of controlled studies, recent statistics, and personal
anecdotes. Whatever you think of sexual harassment, by looking
through this report you will be able to back up your future
remarks on the topic of women in engineering with solid evidence
from studies, statistics from reputable sources, and personal
reports from men and women in engineering.
Some posters wondered why women, by and large, have not joined
this thread to present `their' point of view. I will suggest two
reasons for this: first, as alluded to by another poster, the
overall tone of this thread has been hostile, with a high
preponderance of flames backed up only by personal opinion.
Such an atmosphere is unlikely to lead to constructive
discussion, and most women (and perhaps most men) find such an
atmosphere unappealing and are unlikely to enter the discussion.
Unfortunately this means that the serious postings of the thread
also go unanswered by those put off by the tenor of the note string.
(This has led to the rise of private, flame-free mailing lists
for discussions of issues such as gender relations and sexual
harassment.) A second factor in women's absence from this thread
is that women in an overwhelmingly male profession very quickly
get tired of explaining `the woman's point of view' to men.
Fortunately, you can learn about the `woman's point of view' (to
the extent that such a thing exists) by looking at the tech report
described in the previous paragraph. Among many other things, it goes
into detail on the sorts of factors that keep women away from
discussions such as this.
Another serious question raised is why the committee chose to examine
the problem of computer-based sexual harassment. First, pornographic
screen displays are one of the issues mentioned most often by women
students in Engineering at the U of I as being of concern to them.
(It is also one of the top issues mentioned by women in computer
science who have finished school.) Second, it is an issue that the
committee could do something about. Thus the committee tackled that
issue, along with many others which have gone without discussion
in this thread. For much more information on women and computer-based
sexual harassment, see the MIT TR mentioned above.
The idea, conveyed by some correspondents, that organizations are
eagerly waiting to spear alleged sexual harassment offenders is very
unrealistic. Organizations typically react to sexual harassment charges
with all the enthusiasm bureaucracies reserve for whistleblowers.
I do not have a good reference for reading about the experiences of
women who have lodged, or attempted to lodge, sexual harassment complaints;
perhaps another poster can supply one.
There has been confusion in this thread over what constitutes
harassment, centering on the idea that the `harassee' gets to decide
what is and is not harassment. This is not the case; the standpoint
used is whether the actions would be considered harassment by a `reasonable
person.' More specifically, the California courts (I have no information
specific to Illinois courts) use the standpoint of a `reasonable woman' when judging
actions alleged to constitute workplace sexual harassment directed
toward a woman. The key word here is "reasonable." For example,
California courts (and those of other states) have found pornographic
pictures displayed in the workplace to constitute sexual harassment---
there is solid precedent there. (What constitutes pornography, say
the courts, is to be determined by `community standards.' The courts
must decide whether a particular display constitutes pornography under
local standards, just as they must decide what `reasonable women' would
find to be harassment. Specific situations are not spelled out in
the law; laws are often vague for good reason.) In Champaign-Urbana,
in my opinion the mythical `reasonable woman' does not find a picture of Venus
on the half shell, displayed on a screen as part of an art course, to
be harassing or pornographic. And if some individual did, I don't think
his or her objections would meet with much support from the administration,
or stand up in a court of law.
Regarding free speech: US law does not give unlimited rights to free
speech. For example, libel, incitement to riot, and sexual harassment
in the workplace are all no-nos. One poster suggested that Stanford's
policy on permissible speech/writing/displays was better than the U of
I's policy. I strongly disagree---I find Stanford's policy of banning
defamatory speech to be a well-intentioned but really bad idea, and
a significant infringement on free speech rights. To my knowledge, the
U of I has never attempted to legislate the types of offensive speech
banned by the Stanford policy. (Remember, offensive and harassing
speech are not the same thing under the law.) For example, I believe
that on the basis of his calling certain women dykes and cows, one of
the earlier posters would be eligible for suspension if he were a student
at Stanford.
As the chair of the committee that produced the report discussed in this
thread, I hope I have been able to shed some light on some aspects of
the report. My comments do not constitute any sort of official university
position, or even an official viewpoint of the committee. Unfortunately,
I don't have the time to respond to individual messages or postings
regarding women in engineering, yet I would like to encourage further
discussion of the topic. I hope that the information in the MIT TR,
plus other sources on sexual harassment or free speech rights, will allow
the debate to continue on a less emotional plane, whether in this news
group or elsewhere.
Marianne Winslett
Associate Professor, Computer Science Department, University of Illinois
winslett@cs.uiuc.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 10:17:29 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
Subject: [uiuc.general] Re: Sexual Harassment and Women in Engineering
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 14:08:27 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 10:17:29 1993
From: winslett@cs.uiuc.edu (Marianne Winslett)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment and Women in Engineering
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1993 23:56:10 GMT
Thanks to Carl Kadie for pointing out that there is a difference
between "pornography" and "obscenity", and that the community
standards criteria apply to obscenity rather than pornography.
I think (hope) I got my other legal terms right.
Marianne Winslett
winslett@cs.uiuc.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 10:27:47 1993
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment and Women in Engineering
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 14:17:11 GMT
carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes:
>I find the idea of a "reasonable women" standard very troubling.
[...]
According to a UPI article in clari.local.michigan on June 3, 1993:
===================================
LANSING, Mich. (UPI) -- The Michigan Supreme Court has rejected the
``reasonable woman'' standard for determining whether behavior is
offensive in sexual harassment cases.
Instead, Michigan must continue to use a gender-neutral ``reasonable
person'' test, the court ruled 6-1 Wednesday in a case from Grand
Traverse County.
That means that judges and juries in every sexual harassment case
must consider whether a reasonable person would deem a defendant's
actions offensive enough to constitute harassment.
The decision overturns the ``reasonable woman'' test adopted by the
Michigan Court of Appeals in a landmark 1991 ruling. The appeals court
said the ``reasonable person'' standard tends to be male-biased.
[...]
===================================
I'll re-re-post the full UPI story to uiuc.civil-liberty.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
civil-liberty/civil-liberty-index
=================
* About the Civil Liberty Index mailing list
A description of the civil-liberty-index mailing list. It is a
moderated list for the distribution of indexes of "newsy" civil
liberties articles. All the articles are from Netnews, most are from
ClariNet's commerical UPI service. To read the UPI articles, you need
access to ClariNet.
=================
=================
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/civil-liberty/civil-liberty-index
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/civil-liberty civil-liberty-index
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 10:52:15 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
Subject: Re: Where's the "Banned Computer Uses" list?
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 14:34:37 GMT
00hfstahlke@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
>This year I seem to have missed the compilation, that Carl has
>published in the past, of actions that have challenged electronic
>freedom of expression.
[...]
Banned Book Week is a couple of months away in October.
Post reports of bans, restrictions, and challenges to computer
material to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk (or email to caf-talk@eff.org).
Also, if anything has changed at places mentioned in last year's list,
be sure to post that, too. Denunciations of the list can, of course,
be posted, too.
- 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.
=================
banned.1991
=================
* Computer material that was banned/challenged in academia in 1991
A list of computer material that was banned at universities during (or
before) 1991. It summarizes incidents and policies at Ohio State U.,
the U. of Illinois (two campuses), Case Western U., Boston U., U. of
Waterloo, U. of Toledo, Western Washington U., Iowa State U.,
Pennsylvania State U., U. of Texas, U. of Newcastle, James Madison U.,
U. of Wisconsin, and others.
=================
=================
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
pub/academic/banned.1991
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom banned.1992
send acad-freedom banned.1991
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 17:00:06 1993
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,uiuc.general
Subject: Re: [uiuc.general] Sexual Harassment and Women in Engineering
Message-ID:
Date: 2 Aug 93 19:36:02 GMT
Marianne Winslett (winslett@cs.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>Some posters wondered why women, by and large, have not joined
>this thread to present `their' point of view. I will suggest two
>reasons for this: first, as alluded to by another poster, the
>overall tone of this thread has been hostile, with a high
>preponderance of flames backed up only by personal opinion.
I'm a bit confused by this statement. What is the difference between:
- sending a "Letter to the Editor" to one's local paper,
- standing up in a business meeting of one's church,
- going door-to-door for political/charitable/whatever purposes, and
- posting to Usenet?
Each of these may result in, shall we say, significant reactions from the
other participants in the forum. I've been reading a fine flame war on
the Letters page of our local newspaper for the last 3 weeks; the subject
is Rush Limbaugh. (Personally, I think that both sides are rather silly.)
A member of our church was criticized in a public business meeting for the
idea they presented. I watched a door-to-door collector for the Red Cross
receive a tonguelashing from one of my neighbors. Why do (or should) we
expect Usenet to behave differently from any other public forum?
While we may certainly point out the immediacy of Usenet (as opposed to
the lag of several days between sending a letter and seeing it published),
it should be acknowledged that vituperative commentary and 'flaming' is
hardly the exclusive province of electronic media.
>Unfortunately this means that the serious postings of the thread
>also go unanswered by those put off by the tenor of the note string.
Actually, I rarely *fail* to receive thoughtful comments upon (and, of
course, critiques of) my postings. In fact, I rarely see the complete
absence of reason to which you seem to allude. I'll readily grant that
many of these exchanges take place via email, but I consider that a nor-
mal happening; I'll discuss that perspective in a moment.
>(This has led to the rise of private, flame-free mailing lists
>for discussions of issues such as gender relations and sexual
>harassment.)
Sure, Usenet discussions have naturally generated email conversations,
mailing lists, and even ftp archives. It all depends on our view of
Usenet. I don't look at Usenet as a simple broadcast mechanism; rather,
I consider a Usenet posting, in many (if not most) cases, as a "search
for like minds." Some newsgroups will never be more than that; as rea-
ders find their "like minds" or "professional soulmates," they will of-
ten congregate outside of Usenet. This is neither uncommon nor improper;
in fact, it may be a result of imposing our social natures upon Cyberspace.
>A second factor in women's absence from this thread
>is that women in an overwhelmingly male profession very quickly
>get tired of explaining `the woman's point of view' to men.
>Fortunately, you can learn about the `woman's point of view' (to
>the extent that such a thing exists) by looking at the tech report
>described in the previous paragraph.
Well, I find any single source that claims to speak for a large group
rather contradictory. How many panels/committees/etc. spend months
in vain attempts to reach consensus? Would you really *believe* any
document that claimed to present the definitive "male view," "female
view," or "student's view" of any particular issue? I would not; such
attempts at raw classification deny the intelligence and emotions of
the individual.
Do you honestly believe that the tech report you cite can (or should)
be interpreted as the position of the majority of women computing pro-
fessionals?
If you really want the "others" to understand, personal attention and
contribution is almost a necessity.
>Another serious question raised is why the committee chose to examine
>the problem of computer-based sexual harassment. First, pornographic
>screen displays are one of the issues mentioned most often by women
>students in Engineering at the U of I as being of concern to them.
Indeed; however, how many women did NOT mention it as a priority?
>Second, it is an issue that the committee could do something about.
The ability to perform an action does not provide a moral imperative
to do so. Even when such an imperative is perceived to exist, such
action should be taken with a delicate touch, instead of a sledge-
hammer.
>The idea, conveyed by some correspondents, that organizations are
>eagerly waiting to spear alleged sexual harassment offenders is very
>unrealistic.
Organizations, no -- individuals may behave differently. Incidentally,
how will you handle someone who files XX complaints in a short period
of time? Do/will you have a provision for dismissing "nuisance" com-
plaints?
>I do not have a good reference for reading about the experiences of
>women who have lodged, or attempted to lodge, sexual harassment complaints;
>perhaps another poster can supply one.
Indeed; I would love to read such a document.....
>There has been confusion in this thread over what constitutes
>harassment, centering on the idea that the `harassee' gets to decide
>what is and is not harassment. This is not the case; the standpoint
>used is whether the actions would be considered harassment by a `reasonable
>person.'
If the students (male and female alike) in the UK College of Engineering
are typical, you've just opened a *huge* can of worms. I just looked in
on an engineering class; I saw everything from Bermuda shorts to t-shirts,
suits/ties to tank tops, and from bowl haircuts to spikes. Our students,
perhaps more than any other time in history, represent a *HUGE* cross-
section of our society. Attempts to generalize individual traits, such
as "sensitivity" or "feelings of harassment," in this wide-ranging envi-
ronment are rarely successful.
>More specifically, the California courts (I have no information
>specific to Illinois courts) use the standpoint of a `reasonable woman'
>when judging actions alleged to constitute workplace sexual harassment
>directed toward a woman. The key word here is "reasonable."
Actually, I would think that "directed" is equally important.
One of my worst visions regarding the U of I policy is this -- a woman
walks in a nearly-empty room of 24 workstations, sits down next to the
only other occupied workstation, sees something she finds offensive, and
files a complaint. To me, the logical response is "the lab was empty;
why didn't you simply pick another location?" Unfortunately, the U of I
policy recommendations don't seem to cover that option. In addition,
the recommendations completely ignore intent, which is (in my opinion)
a cruicial proof of harassment. As I've said before, who among us would
NOT cease such activity upon a polite request? Why should our policies
encourage students to go directly to judicial action? In fact, I'd sug-
gest that an offender's refusal to cease the activity upon request would
actually *strengthen* a complaint against them.
What if, in response to a complaint from an individual, I produce a
dozen fellow students who say, "that doesn't bother me at all"? Would
their opinions be considered by the judicial board, or would it boil
down to the complainant and the mythical "reasonable woman"?
You've stated that many women do not wish to participate in these
discussions, for various reasons. I believe that their reluctance,
while understandable in some situations, is detrimental. The near-
insistence upon judicial action (whether explicit or implied) has a
similar detrimental effect. If a person never tries to just *talk the
problem out*, do we really change the (supposed) harasser's mind? I
think not.
As an aside, I notice that you cite the "workplace harassment" decisions.
I was under the impression that those decisions applied to a *constant*,
*regular* environment, i.e. seeing the same thing (or sort of thing) day
after day, from the same people. After reading the UIUC recommendations,
I have the impression that complaints/charges could be filed as the result
of a "one-shot" experience. How can we compare the relatively constant en-
vironment of the commercial/traditional workplace to the never-sit-by-the-
same-person-twice environment found in public computer labs?
>In Champaign-Urbana,
>in my opinion the mythical `reasonable woman' does not find a picture of Venus
>on the half shell, displayed on a screen as part of an art course, to
>be harassing or pornographic. And if some individual did, I don't think
>his or her objections would meet with much support from the administration,
>or stand up in a court of law.
Ah, but what about images of Laurie Anderson, smearing chocolate syrup
on her breasts? Don't laugh -- that is part of her performance art, and
I'm told that it was viewed (via videotape, not online images) as part of
a course at this university.
What about Robert Mapplethorpe's homoerotic photographs?
Madonna's "Sex"?
How can we draw a line? The only way to draw lines is on an *individual*
basis. I wouldn't presume to tell *anyone*, male or female, when they
should be offended. I CERTAINLY wouldn't presume to tell them if/when
they are being harassed. We should certainly give prompt attention to
complaints as they arise, but the notion of _a priori_ restrictions based
on "potential for offense" or "supposed harassment" are unwarranted. How
soon will U of I take steps similar to those under consideration at the
University of Waterloo, where Ms. Prevost-Derbecker is trying to remove
image newsgroups under the umbrella of "harassment and human rights"?
>(Remember, offensive and harassing speech are not the same thing under
>the law.)
Ah, but does your policy make that important distinction? It would appear
that it does not. I have a *strong* feeling that you'll be seeing quite
a few complaints of harassment that are actually cases of offense. I can
only hope that you adjudicate them as such, but my outlook is rather pes-
simistic.
I was disappointed to read that you will not be participating in future
discussion of this issue. I must say that this gives the impression that
you do not wish to hear other perspectives or opinions. If nothing else,
someone could bundle our responses (or extracts thereof) for your perusal
and/or comment. I don't read uiuc.general (it isn't carried by this site),
but the volume of crosspostings indicates that a lively discussion is on-
going. It's a shame that those most affected by your recommendations won't
be heard.
--Wes
--
Wes Morgan - University of Kentucky - morgan@engr.uky.edu
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer E/S admins - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
GCS/E/MU d--- -p+ c++ l+ m* s++/++ !g w+ t+ r
gharshana-neti -- mental floss?
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 17:10:23 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
Subject: [can.politics, et al.] Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 19:29:42 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 17:10:23 1993
From: d40937@iro.umontreal.ca (Jean Yves Desbiens)
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID: <1993Aug1.214727.2658@vlsi.polymtl.ca>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1993 21:47:27 GMT
Marc Thibault (marc@tanda.isis.org) wrote:
: d40937@iro.umontreal.ca (Jean Yves Desbiens) writes:
: ...
: > where inforcement is a lot easier. I do think that sending gifs on your
: > terminal constitute harassement, like phoning someone and talking
: > abscenely at the other end. Putting up pornography in a public place can
: > also be regulated, they use public property to display it so its a double
: > whammy here. WIthout being prudish, If I wanted to see naked body's, I would
: ...
: Actually, you are being prudish, but that's okay - it takes
: all kinds....
: On the other hand, you might want to pull out your Robert and
: check "tourmenter". It should have a definition something like
: " to continuously annoy someone with repeated attacks".
: Is the sight of unclothed skin an attack? In what way are you
: threatened?
: Do your tormentors force you to enjoy naked people often
: enough to describe it as "continuous" or "repeated"? (image of
: the conditioning scene in Clockwork Orange)
: Is "harass" really the word you want to use here?
: "Harassment" is _not_ defined as "something which annoys me
: and is also a sin".
: Cheers,
: Marc
Well I don't think you understood me correctly, I am working on my terminal,
somebody sends over the picture of a naked women that I don't especially want
see right now, and the picture is often in very bad taste; I don't have
anything against anybody showing their naked body, I've been to beaches in
Europe at least 20 times and I wasn't shocked by nudity. The picture that
is sent often reduce women to a pair of breasts, all the women I know
say that breasts bigger than D are a nuisance, but all the women showed have
breasts way bigger than that, we are talking assured back problems here,
most women who have breasts that big wind up having breast reductions for
their own sake. And it is harassing if after having told the person not to
do it, it still does again and again (on different days). Its strange that
the number of such incidents diminish if women are present in the room, that
must mean that they know that this would bother them. I am not quite sure
how most men would react if pictures of naked men where splashed all over
the room and women would drool over them as men do with pictures of naked
women, they would off course put up those where men have extraordinarilly
big penises, nice face and great body. Many men would probably be pissed
off.
If people keep the pictures on their own terminal and at a size where
they can see it perfectly but others cannot (say 8 inch by 6 inch), they
can put what they want (within the law) on the screen. There already seams
to be an unwriten rule that gifs of explicit sex acts are not to be put on the
terminals, this is not a enforceable law but is adhered to by all ; I am not
proposing enforcement of my ideas, just that trough discussion people find
out what they deam offensive (not merely bothersome) and *try* not to do it.
Its more a civility thing, when we live in society (especially a small one
like a computer lab) some adjustments must be made; for example, it is not
permitted to bring in a radio into the computer lab for the main reason that
almost nobody except the one who brought it will be happy about the choice of
music and some won't want any music at all. There is no real law to inforce
the radio thing, but nobody brings one in anyway.
--
No one has ever told you what you are -- muddled, criminally muddled.
Men like you use repentance as a blind. So don't repent. Only say to
yourself "What Helen had done, I've done."
-- Howards End, E.M. Forster 1908-1910
Jean-Yves Desbiens | d40937@info.polymtl.ca
Etudiant en genie informatique | Ecole polytechnique de Montreal
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 17:48:01 1993
Newsgroups: alt.soc.ethics,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,bionet.journals.note
Subject: Your Own Journal?
Message-ID: <1993Aug2.212721.9082@ornl.gov>
From: jov@picoflop.epm.ornl.gov (Judd Jones)
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 21:27:21 GMT
(Not sure what group this should go to...)
Suppose I wanted to be the Editor-in-Chief of some journal, say,
The International Journal of What's-Hot-in-Washington-This-Year.
Sure would look good on my CV. May be a good marketing tool, too.
Suppose I appoint a bunch of my friends to the Editorial Board (looks
good on their CV's, too), they send me some manuscripts, and I
run them down to the local printing press. I could sell individual
subscriptions for $95, institutional subscriptions for $295, and
probably not even lose money.
As long as I pay taxes, it's legal.
Are there ethical issues involved? Professional issues? Or is it all
caveat emptor?
judd jones - oak ridge national lab -- jonesjp@ornl.gov
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 18:03:15 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
Subject: [rec.arts.books, et al.] Re: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ON INTERNET - SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 18:09:17 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 18:03:15 1993
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,aus.general,news.admin.policy,aus.politics
Subject: Re: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ON INTERNET - SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT
Date: 2 Aug 1993 05:57:34 GMT
Message-ID: <23iace$iv1@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>
ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (George Michaelson) writes:
>wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:
GM:
>Decorum is not a word I feel any urge to defend, I'm
>concerned about different goals: preventing abuse and harrassment of the
>individual being uppermost.
The founding fathers of the United States disagreed with you in that
they could not see a free society founded on the notion of *preventing*
individuals from saying things.
On the one hand you're worried about the Goss government's recent authoritarian
inklings; on the other, you would allow the universities, federal
government, your employer, Kennett etc. to continue to build a repressive
atmosphere (this is exactly the case in universities at present) in society -
they too have a compunction to teach individuals what to say. I'm saying
that your position w.r.t. preventing people from saying certain things
seems odd. It cannot be uppermost in your considerations, if I am to
believe your word.
Perhaps my view of the Australian reality is askew from yours: I see the
threats to freedoms, a society that eschews talking, communication
between people that is hesitant for fear of treading on toes, interest
groups gaining power that are quick to jump on individuals for saying
the wrong words and opinions (whether inadvertently or not). This is far
worse than any discrimination that happens in universities, because the
repression goes across the whole spectrum, not just particular groups.
I suggest that the best way to achieve the aims of decency in expression you
wish for is by open discussion between individuals in which each would
be faced with the greatest variety of reponses, ranging from useless to, for
instance, references from historians; by opening the world to the individual,
they are faced with stony silence - what their inanity deserves - or healthy
interplay. They prove their virtue off their own backs, not goaded by
the threat of law, their worst punishment: silence.
The reward: a society where speech does not necessarily have to be
premeditated. That is, one with freedom of speech.
GM:
>> Why should the net be any different to other modes of expression, upon
>> which curtailment of absolute rights of freedom seems to be common,
>> (and not just volountary) and also backed up by penalty?
JW:
>>The net should come under laws that already exist; these laws should
>>apply to the net only insofar as they can be argued in court to be
>>pertinent.
GM:
>Bravo! My own position exactly.
It is insofar as we agree that the matter will have to be eventually
fought in court. Unlike you, I want the case to aim towards a Bill of
Rights. You would have the court decision make a Bill of Rights less
likely. Given that you already have expressed fear of the Goss
government (on grounds of freedoms), any act of yours that makes a Bill of
Rights harder to get is hard to understand. It is against your interests.
>What you seem to be telling me is:
> "Rights exist, constraint on rights should be limited and
> subject to review, the countries setting the pace on constitutional
> law internationally are tending to reduce rather than increase
> constraints on free speech rights."
>Well, that sounds like a good idea to me. I would agree that Australia and
>the UK lag behind on that score, although the outcome of the porn-TV case
>before the Hague will be interesting. The Guardian weekly recently noted
>changes to the 100-year rule on royal secrets, but only pulling them back
>to 30 years like any other state secret (why the menu-lists for queen
>victorias funeral is a state secret is beyond me
Obviously, if you ate pickled Abo balls you wouldn't want word to get around.
>-) -I think the UK f.o.i
>act is as weak as piss, and probably not going to get better soon.
>-George
>--
> George Michaelson
>G.Michaelson@cc.uq.oz.au The Prentice Centre | There's no market for
> University of Queensland | hippos in Philadelphia
>Phone: +61 7 365 4079 QLD Australia 4072 | -Bertold Brecht
John Wojdylo
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 18:24:33 1993
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment and Women in Engineering
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 19:10:24 GMT
jlalande@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (John Lalande) writes:
[...]
>Maybe people need to toughen-up a little ... I was raised with "Sticks
>and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
[...]
I consider myself an advocate for free expression, but I would never
claim that that words never hurt. The question is what to do about
such speech. Some alternatives:
Create some authority to define and punish hurtful speech.
Counter the hurtful speech with good speech.
I generally dislike the first alternative because such authority is
too easily abused.
I'm enclosing an excerpt from ACLU's briefing paper on campus hate
speech and an AAUP statement.
- Carl
==================
Excerpt from ACLU Briefing Paper #16, "Hate Speech on Campus":
"Historically, defamation laws or codes have proven ineffective at
best and counter-productive at worst. For one thing, depending on how
they're intreted and enforced, they can actually work against the
interests of the people they were ostensibly created to protect. Why?
Because the ultimate power to decide what speech is offensive and to
who rests with the authorities -- the government or a college
administration -- the not with those who are the alleged victims of
hate speech.
In Great Britain, for example, a Racial Relations Act was adopted in
1965 to outlaw racist defmation. But throughout its existence, the Act
has largely been used to persecute activists of color, trade unionist
and anti-nuclear protesters, while the racists -- often white members
of Parlimanent -- have gone unpunished.
Simiarly, under the speech code in effect at the University of
Michigan for 18 months, white students in 20 cases charged black
students with offensive speech. One of the cases resulting in the
punishment of a black student for using the term "white trash" in a
conversation with a white student. [...]"
========================
[This is a policy statement from the American Association of
University Professors. The statement was endorsed by AAUP's Committee
A on Academic Freedom and Tenure and by its Council at their meetings
in June 1992. As with all AAUP policy statements, it is in the public
domain. It was published in the July-August 1992 _Academe_.]
On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes
Freedom of thought and expression is essential to any institution of
higher learning. Universities and colleges exist not only to transmit
existing knowledge. Equally, they interpret, explore, and expand that
knowledge by testing the old and proposing the new.
This mission guides learning outside the classroom quite as much as in
class, and often inspires vigorous debate on those social, economic,
and political issues that arouse the strongest passions. In the
process, views will be expressed that may seem to many wrong,
distasteful, or offensive. Such is the nature of freedom to sift and
winnow ideas.
On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden.
No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful or disturbing that it
may not be expressed.
Universities and colleges are also communities, often of a residential
character. Most campuses have recently sought to become more diverse,
and more reflective of the larger community, by attracting students,
faculty, and staff from groups that were historically excluded or
underrepresented. Such gains as they have made are recent, modest, and
tenuous. The campus climate can profoundly affect an institution's
continued diversity. Hostility or intolerance to persons who differ
from the majority (especially if seemingly condoned by the
institution) may undermine the confidence of new members of the
community. Civility is always fragile and can easily be destroyed.
In response to verbal assaults and use of hateful language some
campuses have felt it necessary to forbid the expression of racist,
sexist, homophobic, or ethnically demeaning speech, along with conduct
or behavior that harasses. Several reasons are offered in support of
banning such expression. Individuals and groups that have been victims
of such expression feel an understandable outrage. They claim that the
academic progress of minority and majority alike may suffer if fears,
tensions, and conflicts spawned by slurs and insults create an
environment inimical to learning. These arguments, grounded in the
need to foster an atmosphere respectful of and welcome to all persons,
strike a deeply responsive chord in the academy. But, while we can
acknowledge both the weight of these concerns and the thoughtfulness
of those persuaded of the need for regulation, rules that ban or
punish speech based upon its content cannot be justified. An
institution of higher learning fails to fulfill its mission if it
asserts the power to proscribe ideas -- and racial or ethnic slurs,
sexist epithets, or homophobic insults almost always express ideas,
however repugnant. Indeed, by proscribing any ideas, a university sets
an example that profoundly disserves its academic mission. Some may
seek to defend a distinction between the regulation of the content of
speech and the regulation of the manner (or style) of speech. We find
this distinction untenable in practice because offensive style or
opprobrious phrases may in fact have been chosen precisely for their
expressive power. As the United States Supreme Court has said in the
course of rejecting criminal sanctions for offensive words: [W]ords
are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force.
We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while solicitous of
the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard
for that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be
the more important element of the overall message sought to be
communicated. The line between substance and style is thus too
uncertain to sustain the pressure that will inevitably be brought to
bear upon disciplinary rules that attempt to regulate speech.
Proponents of speech codes sometimes reply that the value of emotive
language of this type is of such a low order that, on balance,
suppression is justified by the harm suffered by those who are
directly affected, and by the general damage done to the learning
environment. Yet a college or university sets a perilous course if it
seeks to differentiate between high-value and low-value speech, or to
choose which groups are to be protected by curbing the speech of
others. A speech code unavoidably implies an institutional competence
to distinguish permissible expression of hateful thought from what is
proscribed as thoughtless hate. Institutions would also have to
justify shielding some, but not other, targets of offensive language
-- not to political preference, to religious but not to philosophical
creed, or perhaps even to some but not to other religious
affiliations. Starting down this path creates an even greater risk
that groups not originally protected may later demand similar
solicitude -- demands the institution that began the process of
banning some speech is ill equipped to resist.
Distinctions of this type are neither practicable nor principled;
their very fragility underscores why institutions devoted to freedom
of thought and expression ought not adopt an institutionalized
coercion of silence.
Moreover, banning speech often avoids consideration of means more
compatible with the mission of an academic institution by which to
deal with incivility, intolerance, offensive speech, and harassing
behavior:
(1) Institutions should adopt and invoke a range of measures that
penalize conduct and behavior, rather than speech, such as rules
against defacing property, physical intimidation or harassment, or
disruption of campus activities. All members of the campus community
should be made aware of such rules, and administrators should be ready
to use them in preference to speech-directed sanctions.
(2) Colleges and universities should stress the means they use best --
to educate -- including the development of courses and other
curricular and co-curricular experiences designed to increase student
understanding and to deter offensive or intolerant speech or conduct.
Such institutions should, of course, be free (indeed en and
discrimination, whether physical or verbal.
(3) The governing board and the administration have a special duty not
only to set an outstanding example of tolerance, but also to challenge
boldly and condemn immediately serious breaches of civility.
(4) Members of the faculty, too, have a major role; their voices may
be critical in condemning intolerance, and their actions may set
examples for understanding, making clear to their students that
civility and tolerance are hallmarks of educated men and women.
(5) Student personnel administrators have in some ways the most
demanding role of all, for hate speech occurs most often in
dormitories, locker-rooms, cafeterias, and student centers. Persons
who guide this part of campus life should set high standards of their
own for tolerance and should make unmistakably clear the harm that
uncivil or intolerant speech inflicts.
To some persons who support speech codes, measures like these --
relying as they do on suasion rather than sanctions -- may seem
inadequate. But freedom of expression requires toleration of "ideas we
hate," as Justice Holmes put it. The underlying principle does not
change because the demand is to silence a hateful speaker, or because
it comes from within the academy. Free speech is not simply an aspect
of the educational enterprise to be weighed against other desirable
ends. It is the very precondition of the academic enterprise itself.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 18:46:02 1993
From: moran@muir.ai.sri.com (Doug Moran)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: "Interaction" with Kadie (was Re: Wanted: Assertiveness...)
Date: 2 Aug 93 14:46:52
Message-ID:
> From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
> Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
> Subject: "Interaction" with Kadie (was Re: Wanted: Assertiveness...)
> Date: 31 Jul 1993 01:05:59 -0400
> Message-ID: <23cujn$int@eff.org>
>
> moran@muir.ai.sri.com (Doug Moran) writes:
>
> >In my "interaction" with Kadie, he violated many of the rules he
> >described. Although I have seen many others whose conduct was much
> >worse than his, his was bad enough to earn Kadie my continuing
> >animosity. [...] I took a severe beating at the hands of Kadie and
> >company. However, this was a choice that I made (lesser evil),
> >knowing the likely consequences.
> [...]
>
> You accuse me of hypocrisy, but then give no details.
>
> Please either detail your accusation or retract it.
My experience with Kadie was:
1. Based on an apparently faulty recollection of one message, Kadie
made a serious accusation against the SysAdmin in the context of
reporting the student's (unsupported) claim.
Accusation <1993Feb7.195839.19165@eff.org>:
1. that the SysAdmin accused the student "of maliciously trying
to break into their system"
2. that he contacted "the chair of his department"
(1) was a falsehood from the student's report, (2) was Kadie's.
2. When another reader caught the error, Kadie did not acknowledge the
mistake
mandel@netcom.com (Tom Mandel):<1993Feb8.004251.12739@netcom.com>
Neither did he undertake to correct it when others repeated this
falsehood over and over again.
3. Two days after false accusation #1, Kadie followed up with another,
this one based on a combination of an apparent misreading of a message
and of inadequate knowledge of the topic:
"...misleading and defamitory. ... is to lie".
: @ 9 Feb 1993 06:54:41 GMT
For explanation of errors in Kadie's message, see
morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan):
15 Feb 1993 18:18:29 GMT
of 16 Feb 1993 14:39:45 GMT
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin):
<1lptd6INNg01@early-bird.think.com>: 16 Feb 1993 05:17:26 GMT
(there many more messages in this back and forth).
4. Kadie produced messages ridiculing his chosen target. Examples:
- Suggested a form letter saying "... if SRI would really be silly
enough ..." : 11 Feb 1993 19:46:40 GMT
- Contest announcement (<1993Feb15.161213.27529@eff.org>):
"... #2: Rewrite the enclosed form letter so as to make the
incident seem as important and dangerous as possible. You may
mislead; but there must be at least one interpretation of your
words that is not an out-and-out lie."
And his follow-ups.
5. The target of Kadie's slanders was not a reader of the newsgroup
in which he published them. When called on the above, Kadie did
not apologize -- he said that the target was at fault for not
reading the newsgroup and for not immediately responding to
falsehoods and character assassinations.
<1993Feb22.015705.5034@eff.org>
> You say you
> took a severe beating at the hands of "Kadie and company", but I am no
> "company", I am just one person. If someone *else* "beat" you, it is
> unfair to hold me responsible.
"X and company" is a common colloquialism (in my experience in a wide
variety of locations and groups) denoting the the people who follow X's
lead or the pattern established by X. This colloquialism is based on
the version of "company" used in "have company over for dinner".
>
> My memory of SRI/Memphis State incident is that:
> * A student at Memphis State university thought you had unfairly
> accused him of "malisciously tri[ing] to break into [your] system".
> * You consciously decided not to respond to the charge that you made
> an unfair accusation.
False: we did respond within 8 hours of first learning of the discussion.
We spent over 8 person-hours confirming what happened and drafting a
factual response that we hoped would not be inflammatory.
> [I believe you should have responded (as I am now):
> '* Never let a public "slander" go unchallenged. To challenge a
> "slander" minimizes the damage it causes. To let it go, maximize
> the damage it causes.']
Our first response was largely ignored except for the portions that could
could be misrepresented. One doesn't stop a "feeding frenzy" by throwing
more meat into the water (note: "feeding frenzy" is an analogy).
> To refresh everyone's memory, I'm including the abstracts of CAF-News
> related to the SRI/Memphis State incident. See the batch files,
> starting with ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/feb_08_1993 for a complete log
> of alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk related to SRI/Memphis State
>
> You believe I some how gave you a "severe beating" and you accuse me
> of hypocracy. I believe you are mistaken. Please look at the record
> and either:
> 1) support your accusation with details
> 2) correct your mistake
Beating:
I preparation for my response (),
I read the whole thread and judged that Kadie's messages played a key
role in the generating the "feeding frenzy". There were a great many
falsehoods about us being broadcast worldwide. There was also a
escalating series of direct harassment against our facility that was
a consequence of the heated messages in this thread (there was a high
degree of correlation between the host addresses in the vituperative
messages and the hosts from which many of the harassing attacks
originated. N.B: Kadie was _not_ one of them). The breadth and
intensity of the harassment is strong evidence of the extent to which
our reputation took a beating.
Hypocrisy:
Rule: "Try do distance the issue or problem from people.": see 4
Rule: "Use phrases such as "I believe, ...": see 1, 3.
Rule: "Assume the best, not the worst": see 1, 3, 4.
Rule: "When you make a mistake, admit it right away.": see 2, 3, 5
Rule: "Try to end discussions on good terms with everyone, ...": see 5
>
> - Carl
>
> ==============================================================
> ftp.eff.org:pub/news/cafv03n08 & ftp.eff.org:pub/batch/feb_21_1993
> ==============================================================
> 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 1-4 continue the debate arising out of a Memphis State
> University student's use of anonymous ftp at AI.SRI.COM.
>
Notes 1-3 are good summaries and would have raised my opinion of
the author, had it not been for the inclusion of note 4 as a
noteworthy part of the thread.
> ... < Notes 1-3 elided> ...
> 4. The log's evidence is not inconsistent with the student's
> having had innocent intent. The README file "asked [the student]
> not to look in pub/ and, not knowing what these directories mean,
> [the student] proceeds out of there to etc/ assuming that a site
> that lets him in anonymously must keep the public stuff
> *somewhere*."
This is a claim that the note's author and that the summary's author
should have known was false. The student never claimed to have seen
the README file and claimed to have gotten other files from ~ftp/pub
(although our logs say he didn't): ""...Well...they didnt have much.
I did a few GET foo.bar - just to display the contents ..."
> The student was logged into a VMS system at his
> end, and denies familiarity with Unix conventions.
The student didn't deny "familiarity with Unix conventions", but stated
things in a way to lead the reader to _infer_ that he didn't know them.
Note: I don't know whether he did or not.
The issue of VMS to UNIX is a phony one. Cross-platform attacks have
been common for at least two years at my site and others that I know of.
Right now I am working with another site on one of these: One of my
user's passwords was stolen by a Trojan Horse on a UNIX system during
a visit to a university (their sysadmin's notified us and the affected
password was changed) and that password was recently used in an
unsuccessful connection attempt from a VAX/VMS host at an unrelated site.
> "I still see
> nothing presented by you to question his word."
An example of Barry Shein putting words into other people's mouth.
There is a major difference between questioning the student's word -
Shein's characterization - and questioning the accuracy of the information
in his account. I did so only indirectly - in response to attacks on us
that were based upon inaccuracies in the student's account. In none of
our messages did we provide any characterization of the student's account
nor rendered any judgement on its accuracy. What I did criticize were
the statements and the judgements of those that treated the student's
account uncritically.
Note: various messages in the thread showed that there were multiple
errors in the second- and third-hand information that the student
reported, and there were discrepancies in what he reported he did and
what our logs say he did (which could be due to faulty recollection
resulting from the interval between the event and the message).
The author of the summary seems to be careless in checking what is
fact and what is fabrication.
> "I think you
> [i.e., those at AI.SRI.COM] were the ones who jumped to
> conclusions."
This is presented out of context. It was the final sentence of part of
Shein's message based upon a careful editing of a passage in my posting
that reversed the meaning of what I said. Based on the postings in
(3) above, the author of the summary should have known that this was
misleading.
> Despite their protestations, "pub" means "public."
No one ever cited anything that stated that "pub" was intended to be short
for "public". We took it to mean "published".
Aside: "publish" is derived from "to make public", but no one today
bats an eye when referring to secret or confidential publications.
This divergence seems to be due to "public" coming to mean "general
public" instead of "a community", although with modifiers it still
has the latter reading, e.g., "the book-buying public" (from the
Random House College Dictionary).
Since the summary's author choses to include it, he is (implicitly)
endorsing it. It would seem that the Kadie rule
"Generally don't expect anyone to just take your word for something
because you are an authority. If you are really are an authority,
you should be able to make the case."
doesn't apply here.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
> =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Douglas B. Moran
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 22:35:38 1993
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: "Interaction" with Kadie (was Re: Wanted: Assertiveness...)
Date: 2 Aug 1993 22:35:05 -0400
Message-ID: <23kisp$8t1@eff.org>
I asked Doug Moran to detail (or retract) his charges against me. He
was kind enough to detail them. All the referenced messages are in
ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/feb_07_1993, feb_14_1993, etc.
============
Summary
============
I've moved Mr. Moran's summary to the front. The numbers (1,2,3, etc)
refer to points in the body of Mr. Moran's note.
>Beating:
>I preparation for my response (),
>I read the whole thread and judged that Kadie's messages played a key
>role in the generating the "feeding frenzy".
[...]
I've read your whole response and judge that the SRI's decision to not
to respond to "unfounded, unchecked assumptions and conjectures" in
the hope that the "thread would quickly die out and the falsehoods
published here would be soon forgotten" played a key role in
generating the "feeding frenzy".
>Hypocrisy:
>Rule: "Try do distance the issue or problem from people.": see 4
I said that I didn't think SRI would be silly enough to put real
passwords in an anonymous ftp site (it is not) and I made fun of a
form letter.
>Rule: "Use phrases such as "I believe, ...": see 1, 3.
I used the phrase "According to the Memphis State University student
involved, ..." and "I find ...".
>Rule: "Assume the best, not the worst": see 1, 3, 4.
I try to assume the best when people seem to flame me. I don't
necessarily assume the best in other situations.
>Rule: "When you make a mistake, admit it right away.": see 2, 3, 5
I'm sorry, while I see differences of opinions in 2, 3, and 5, I don't
see mistakes.
I did make a mistake in when I said that the student said that the SRI
admin contacted the head of his department (see 1). I made this
mistake on Feburary 7. I don't think the mistake was pointed out until
Feburary 14 . By then I had forgotten that I had
said it. Indeed, I didn't realize that this was "my mistake" until Mr.
Mogan's recent note. I apologize for this mistake.
>Rule: "Try to end discussions on good terms with everyone, ...": see 5
I'm trying.
=========
The Body of Mr. Morgan's Note:
=========
moran@muir.ai.sri.com (Doug Moran) writes:
>My experience with Kadie was:
>1. Based on an apparently faulty recollection of one message, Kadie
> made a serious accusation against the SysAdmin in the context of
> reporting the student's (unsupported) claim.
> Accusation <1993Feb7.195839.19165@eff.org>:
> 1. that the SysAdmin accused the student "of maliciously trying
> to break into their system"
> 2. that he contacted "the chair of his department"
> (1) was a falsehood from the student's report, (2) was Kadie's.
Here is my text in article <1993Feb7.195839.19165@eff.org>:
According to the Memphis State University student involved, this
all started when he browsed through some of the files that SRI
made (and continues to make) available via anonymous ftp. He says
that SRI responded by contacting the chair of his department and
accusing him of maliciously trying to break into their system.
I think it is clear that the student and not I accused the admin of
accusing the student of maliciously tring to break into the SRI
system.
I was incorrect when I said that the according to the student "SRI
responded by contacting the chair of his department". As Mr. Mandel
suggests this was a faulty recollection of the student's original
article, <1993Feb4.230239.5445@memstvx1.memst.edu>, which said
in part:
"He [the student's professor] says he got a call from the department
chair, who got a call from computer services, who got a call from an
unknown person at SRI, ..."
>2. When another reader caught the error, Kadie did not acknowledge the
> mistake
> mandel@netcom.com (Tom Mandel):<1993Feb8.004251.12739@netcom.com>
> Neither did he undertake to correct it when others repeated this
> falsehood over and over again.
Article <1993Feb8.004251.12739@netcom.com> does not correct my error
(saying that the student said the SRI admin contacted the department
head). It merely questioned my interpretation:
"Carl, I just ftp'd and read, per your suggestion, the student's
original posting (from ftp.eff.org
pub/academic/batch/feb_07_1993), and your statement above is
rather misleading, in my opinion."
>3. Two days after false accusation #1, Kadie followed up with another,
> this one based on a combination of an apparent misreading of a message
> and of inadequate knowledge of the topic:
> "...misleading and defamitory. ... is to lie".
> : @ 9 Feb 1993 06:54:41 GMT
Here is the note I was responding to:
>Hi... I manage the computer facilities at AI.SRI.COM.
[...]
>That afternoon we sent to the authorities at the originating site the
>following notification:
>
>>TO:
[...]
>>We logged an annonymous ftp connection from you site this morning
>>at 6:18PST. During this session there was an attempt to access
>>our site's passwd file. This is activity that is very often associated
>with hackers.
[...]
And here is what I wrote:
I find these last lines misleading and defamitory. The site's
password file is not "~ftp:etc/passwd". To say that displaying
"~ftp/etc/passwd" is "an attempt to access our site's passwd file"
is to lie.
> For explanation of errors in Kadie's message, see
> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan):
> 15 Feb 1993 18:18:29 GMT
> of 16 Feb 1993 14:39:45 GMT
> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin):
> <1lptd6INNg01@early-bird.think.com>: 16 Feb 1993 05:17:26 GMT
> (there many more messages in this back and forth).
The reason there is back and forth on this is because there is a
difference of opinion. My opinion remains that to say 'To say that
displaying "~ftp/etc/passwd" is "an attempt to access our site's
passwd file" is to lie.' I assume Wes Morgan and Barry Margolin stand
by their contrary opinion, although Barry does end his article:
"But I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong: it's not crystal clear
that he's trying to break into your system. But it's certainly
enough reason to be wary. To make a legal analogy, it's not enough
evidence to convict, but it should be enough probable cause for an
investigation."
>4. Kadie produced messages ridiculing his chosen target.
I don't believe I've every claimed that I would not be make fun of
what I find ridiculous. Indeed, I'm very proud of publication in
rec.humor.funny of a parody the Houston Chronicle article on computer
network porn.
> Examples:
> - Suggested a form letter saying "... if SRI would really be silly
> enough ..." : 11 Feb 1993 19:46:40 GMT
Here is what I wrote:
The SRI complaint form letter said: "This is activity that is very
often associated with hackers." I think it should have said "This
is activity is most often associated with folks who want to know if
SRI would really be silly enough to put passwords in an anonymous
ftp archive."
> - Contest announcement (<1993Feb15.161213.27529@eff.org>):
> "... #2: Rewrite the enclosed form letter so as to make the
> incident seem as important and dangerous as possible. You may
> mislead; but there must be at least one interpretation of your
> words that is not an out-and-out lie."
> And his follow-ups.
I thought this article made a good point.
>5. The target of Kadie's slanders was not a reader of the newsgroup
> in which he published them.
The SRI admin apparently *was* following the discussion. In article
he wrote:
A number of unfounded, unchecked assumptions and conjectures about
the anonymous FTP situation at my site have come to be treated as
fact in this newsgroup. Up to this point, I have refrained from
responding because I was advised that the thread would quickly die
out and the falsehoods published here would be soon forgotten. It
has become painfully clear that this is not happening and that the
characterization of our site is moving further and further from
the truth.
To which I responded in :
You were given poor advice. Falsehoods should be rebutted as
quickly as possible (this is true not just on the Net, but even in
presidential campaigns.)
To which you responded in <1993Feb18.164926.24176@netcom.com>:
I was one of the people who so advised, Doug. Flamefests of this
sort are generally a waste of time. Differences of opinion such
as those expressed in this endless thread are rarely, if ever, resolved
online. Usually it is best to ignore them and let them die down,
although that was not the case in this instance.
Discussion in the thread has confirmed rather than changed my
thinking in this regard.
To which I replied, <1993Feb22.015705.5034@eff.org> :
While it may be safe to ignore most aspects of "flamefests", I believe
it is unwise to ignore the falsehoods. A lie should not go unchallenged.
Here is how you now characterize this exchange:
> When called on the above, Kadie did
> not apologize -- he said that the target was at fault for not
> reading the newsgroup and for not immediately responding to
> falsehoods and character assassinations.
> <1993Feb22.015705.5034@eff.org>
I don't see how this characterization follows from the actual exchange.
[ ...Stuff about "Kadie and company" deleted...]
I wrote:
> > My memory of SRI/Memphis State incident is that:
> > * A student at Memphis State university thought you had unfairly
> > accused him of "malisciously tri[ing] to break into [your] system".
> > * You consciously decided not to respond to the charge that you made
> > an unfair accusation.
Mogan replies:
>False: we did respond within 8 hours of first learning of the discussion.
>We spent over 8 person-hours confirming what happened and drafting a
>factual response that we hoped would not be inflammatory.
Sorry, I forgot about that. Recall that I was the one who, with
permission, actually posted this response to Netnews. What I was
thinking of what the discussion that followed, refered to in
:
A number of unfounded, unchecked assumptions and conjectures about
the anonymous FTP situation at my site have come to be treated as
fact in this newsgroup. Up to this point, I have refrained from
responding because I was advised that the thread would quickly die
out and the falsehoods published here would be soon forgotten.
[... Critisim of a someone else's *paraphrase* of someone else's
article in CAF-News deleted ...]
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 2 23:36:17 1993
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Date: 3 Aug 1993 03:19:34 GMT
Message-ID: <23klg6INNhfm@mojo.eng.umd.edu>
In article spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA writes:
>Matthew T. Russotto writes:
>
>> If the peril exists, the authorities have won. What they have then
>> done is made someone else responsible for a person's actions.
>> It's a perfect tactic because it works only against ethical persons,
>> and the authorities have no ethics themselves. You've seen the tactic
>> before, in instances ranging from grammar school to the dramshop laws.
>"the authories" don't exist as a group you can define to that extent.
Perhaps not, but the abstraction is useful. Authoritarianism is an
idea best expressed with reference to authorities.
>In any case, the peril that attaches to a sytem administrator on whose
>system someone posts child pornography does not stem from "the authorities"
>who know the net; it comes from the public who don't understand the
>nature of the net, and 99% of whom would honestly (if wrongly) see a
>news group like alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children as a "child
>pornography ring" and react accordingly.
They would only see it that way because the authorities who know the
net would deliberately tell them that. 99% of the people do and will
continue to ignore all newsgroups unless someone deliberately brings
it to their attention through mainstream channels. And mainstream
media channels are, almost by definition, run by one authority or another.
>No "evil conspiracy" exists. Only a solid reality: some of the things
>we do, some of the information we transmit can have real and harmful
>results. Only we, you and I and the other residents, not some imaginary
>power crazies can convince the public (the real and ultimate authorities)
>that we represent a threat to innocent people.
The power crazies aren't imaginary-- they are quite real. Ms.
Provost-Derbacher, for instance. The fact that they are not a single
organized group or conspiracy works in our favor, but it doesn't make
them nonexistant.
>[ argument about anarchy deleted ]
>
>> It implies the absense of any enforced responsibility or solidarity.
>
>Did I say I wanted it "enforced"?
Once you define some actions as "responsible" and others as
"irresponsible", you are a infinitesimal distance away from declaring
that action must be taken against the "irresponsible" before they hurt
the "responsible". Successfully labeling someone "irresponsible" essentially
deprives them of any rational defense-- it is incredibly difficult to
defend irresponsibility. You've probably seen it on lots of net
arguments-- a favorite tactic is to insinuate that your opponent is
"irresponsible" or "immature".
>Look, actions have consequences. Anarchy can't repeal the law of gravity;
>if I jump off the CN tower, I can expect to splat at the bottom. If I
>convince the people around me I represent a threat to them, they'll take
>steps to deal with that threat.
But you see, it isn't the people on alt.binaries.pictures.erotica who
are convincing people that they represent a threat. It is people like
Provost-Derbecker who are convincing people that the posters on a.b.p.e
represent a threat.
>I don't want a net.cop with the power to revoke accounts and network
>access. I do want a real discussion, grounded on the principle that
>everyone has rights, not just the people on the net, and when people
>raise concerns about things like child pornography on the net, we
>should respond with something besides a label and a dismissal.
We aren't given a chance to respond, as you may notice. The attacks
on the net are made by authorities OUTSIDE the net, and always in a
forum where response is difficult. Actually, one of the unique things
about the net is that response is not difficult. Read the letters
to the editor opposing one of a newspaper's editorial positions--
you'll find that they pick the least rational of the
letters to print, put an inflammatory title at the top, and sandwich
the letter between a few rational ones supporting their position.
They also edit them unfavorably.
>> They don't care about any social danger-- they care only for their>
>> increasing their own power. They use the language of social danger in
>> order to recruit others to their cause, and to justify themselves to
>> those who might object.
>You have no evidence (nor can you have) about anybody's "real" motive,
>or about what they care about. You can only invalidate their concerns by
>showing that the danger doesn't really exist.
Then I've retreated, and they come up with a new danger. I have
plenty of evidence about their real motive-- their tactics are
evidence enough.
>> If we respond to the threat by "behaving with a minimum
>> of responsibility", they HAVE won. Their mere threat has succeeded in
>> constraining our behaviour.
>
>No! You keep missing the point. We shouldn't need the "threat". We should
>behave responsibly because we have the freedom to do so. We should at
>least say: I chose to do X because... instead of accusing people who
>criticise us of "plotting" to take away our "freedom".
But don't you see that you've defined "behaving with a minimum of
responsibility" as "behaving in a manner in which the 'public' does
not threaten action against you". Let's say that no one could take
any action against a poster or a system administrator or anyone on the
net because of what he posted. What would then be irresponsible, and
why? You've made reference to things being irresponsible because they
may violate laws-- but that is nothing more than an accession to authority.
"Plotting" isn't correct because it implies some sort of secrecy-- and
they are doing it right out in the open.
>Look, right now you don't have the freedom you think you do, because
>your imaginary "power-crazed authorities" make it impossible for you
>to take real responsibility for your actions. I can stand up and say
>"I consider this irresponsible" because I have not succumbed to fear
>of some vast politically correct/power crazed conspiracy which "wins"
>if I behave decently.
If the threats of authority cause you to accept their idea of decent,
then they have won a small victory. If they manage to get any single
idea of decent accepted throughout the net, they have won a large
victory. Once they have managed to make it indecent or
'irresponsible' to do anything they oppose, they have won a complete
victory.
If you wish to claim that something is irresponsible per se, and thus
should be opposed, I have no problem with that. If you want to say
that it is irresponsible because it breaks some rule or gets someone
like Provost-Derbecker riled up, then I do have a problem.
> The imaginary "conspiracy" (which really boils
>down to some decent, concerned people with little information about
>how the net works)
There is only so much you can ascribe to ignorance. "Indecency" has
always been an excuse to impose controls-- look at FCC regs for an example.
> already controlls you almost completely.
>
>> Don't you see what they are trying to do? If we agree that child
>> pornography and violation of copyright are bad things, they will then
>> argue that these things must be prevented, and we will have no choice
>> but to agree. At that point, there will have to be an method of
>> preventing them, and that means a real formal power structure. Once there is a
>> such power structure in the net, the authorities can use it in any
>> manner they please.
>
>Don't you see that YOU have already submitted to mind control? If
>you want to disagree that child pornography and copyright violations
>cause real harm, then do so as a free person; stand up and make your
>argument on moral and rational grounds. Answer Ms. Prevost-Derbecker;
>don't just write her off as one of "them".
If she is willing to come HERE to argue, I'll answer her. On her own
turf, she cannot be successfully opposed.
I don't agree that child pornography and copyright violations are
harmless-- only that the structure necessary to control them would be
prone to abuse and much more harmful than they are.
>As it stands, you have invented a conspiracy of control freaks, and
>then turned control over to them.
I don't need a conspiracy of control freaks. Control freaks without a
conspiracy are enough. And I KNOW control freaks exist.
>> But do you really want REAL net.police with the power to eliminate
>> such freedom?
>No, I don't. I don't think we will ever see such net.police. We may see
>moves (actually, we have seen moves) to shut of net access to entire
>categories of users (undergrads come to mind) because of irresponsible
>behaviour (actual disruption of the work of other people, harrassment,
>etc.).
Cutting off undergrads institution by institution is relatively
ineffective. And they currently CAN'T do it throughout the net--
the mechanism just isn't there.
>I would rather see people address the arguments as they come.
>Try network freedom, and such news groups as alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
>should continue, despite copyright and child pornography concerns,
>because...
Why should I make such an argument? The ones making the decisions
aren't here-- they aren't on the net.
>What we have instead boils down to: go away you power-crazed, politically
>correct, censorship-loving person we've never met but whose motives we
>know beyond a doubt.
I think her motive is clear. Just remember-- she isn't listening.
She doesn't care what those of us on the net think-- we don't count.
Only those with the power to turn off the net count.
>When we do that, we don't address the argument; we don't
>stand up for our freedoms; we just hunker down, hurl abuse, whine about our
>inevitable loss, and wait for the "authorities" to take it away from
>us.
I cannot stand up to someone who is not willing to listen. She is
speaking in a forum denied to most of us. Provost-Derbecker may win
within her particular domain. She may get all the .sex. newsgroups turned off.
But that will be a much smaller victory than if she gets all of us on
the net to "behave" in order to save the ".sex." newsgroups in
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 06:35:35 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: NATHAN
Subject: Wanted : A public NNTP server . . .
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 09:39:09 GMT
Wanted : A public NNTP server to be used by Nuntius for the Macintosh,
the local server does not subscribe to groups alt.security and
comp.security.
Nathan.
(NATHAN@Otago.ac.nz)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 14:34:23 1993
From: U15289@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Date: 3 Aug 1993 14:33:49 -0400
Message-ID: <199308031833.AA14047@eff.org>
In message <1993Jul30.145354.10428@vlsi.polymtl.ca>, Jean Yves Desbiens
wrote:
>Well actually, what really offends me the most is when people send it to my
>screen uninvited, they then chuckle like the stupid they are and make
>stupid smile. The reply of the couple of women and men who were annoyed
>was to send them big gifs of dicks on their who screen; they
>didn't like that at all isn't that strange.
This, it seems to me, is quite a different story from the more common scenario
discussed in these pages, in which someone calls up an erotic/pornographic
(pick your adjective :-) ) gif for their own viewing, and it happens to be
visible to another person whom it rubs the wrong way. The harassing intent
is much more clearcut in the example above, which may well come under general
regulations WRT harassment by email--making it unnecessary to resort to a
sexual harassment policy to control this sort of thing. It all speaks to the
crucial role played by intent (not to mention content and context) in deter-
mining whether a given erotic display constitutes harassment or not. Any good
SH policy will keep the difference in sight at all times, and refuse to define
each and every such display as harassment independent of circumstances.
Mitch Pravatiner
U15289@uicvm.uic.edu
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 14:48:37 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin, et al.] Re: Theory of SysAd
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 18:31:08 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 14:48:37 1993
From: scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons)
Subject: Re: Theory of SysAd
Message-ID: <1993Jul30.205742.4320@lokkur.dexter.mi.us>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 20:57:42 GMT
In article , Cameron Laird (claird@NeoSoft.com) wrote:
> Anyone have a theory of System Administration? I'm looking for
Here's some from a `;login:' article a year or two back. Elizabeth Zwicky
also has as set; she will no doubt be posting shortly.
Simmons' Laws of System Administration
The Definition:
System Administration is the combination of system support
and user support.
The First Law of System Administration:
Any rule can be modified by the application of power and
policy. By contrast, rules always are subordinate to laws.
The Network Paradox:
System support is a subset of network support. Network sup-
port is a subset of system support.
The Laws Of Unanticipated Support Cost:
1. It will always cost you more to support a thing than
the vendor told you.
2. It will usually cost you more to support a thing than
to buy it.
3. Sometimes it costs 10x as much to support a thing as it
did to buy it.
4. Refusing to support something often results in the
thing being unusable.
5. Once it's installed, supporting a thing is sometimes
cheaper than not supporting it.
6. Before buying, make sure you're committed to support.
But see item 1.
The Division Between System Support and User Support:
There's a difference between system support and user sup-
port. There may be overlap in the two positions; sometimes
both are done by the same person. But the two tasks are
distinct and sometimes have conflicting goals.
The Law Of Distributed Talent:
Great system support people often make lousy user support
people and vice versa.
The Paradox Of Dual Abilities:
The person good enough to do both system support and user
support will usually be hired away by a shop where the
combined tasks are too large for a single person.
On Complexity And Customization:
Application-to-application differences confuse everyone,
especially users and support staff. Ditto UNIX-to-UNIX
differences, etc. By contrast, complete consistency com-
pletely stifles improvement.
At any given site for any given application or feature,
there's someone who knows more about it than the support
staff. Finding that person is the first step to take to
diagnose any given problem.
Time to diagnose and time to fix are fix are completely
unrelated. Sometimes one approaches zero while the other
approaches infinity. This is especially hard to deal with
when the diagnostic person and the fix person are not the
same.
One person's improved feature is another person's gratuitous
change.
Users want applications and systems they can customize.
One user's customization is another user's gratuitous
change.
The Laws Of The Cost Of Customization:
The cost of customization is complexity. The cost of com-
plexity is increased difficulty in administration and user
support. The cost of increased difficulty in administration
and user support is either lower quality of administration
and user support, increased support staff, or both. There-
fore increased customization means increased cost, or lower
quality of support, or both.
The Paradox Of Unused Customization:
It doesn't matter whether customization has actually been
done. The mere fact that it's possible means you must check
for it, thereby increasing the cost of problem diagnosis.
Smallwood's Law (Simmons' paraphrase):
"They're not users, they're clients." - Kevin Smallwood
Users Are Human:
The user who says "Can X be done?" is usually really asking
"Would someone please do X?" Make sure you answer both ques-
tions.
It's human to blame problems on outside causes. By con-
trast, an outsider will always suspect the insider as the
cause.
The user who says "I didn't change anything" isn't always
lying. Sometimes they're just ignorant or forgetful.
It's more important for users to do their job than to answer
the needs of admins. Unless of course their job is to
answer that need.
Admins Are Human:
For every statement in "Users Are Human," change "user" to
"admin" and vice-versa.
The `You Broke It' Principle:
Cockpit error is the most common cause of problems. Every-
body is a pilot.
Support Is Overhead:
One way of cutting costs without cutting development staff
is by cutting overhead. System administration and user sup-
port are overhead.
User and system admin training are overhead. Not having
them increases overhead. Go figure.
The Joy Of Being A Contract System Administrator:
"Sure, we can do that. Here's what it'll cost you."
His Site Isn't Your Site:
The situation at your site doesn't make you qualified to
judge the situation at another site, and vice-versa.
Just because someone else's support staff does it doesn't
mean your staff can do it. (This statement is subtler than
it looks.)
The Rules of Policy and Power:
1. System administration is whatever the boss tells the
admins it is.
2. Users will bypass admins to get the boss to tell the
admins something different. That's their right.
3. Most system admins live in a policy vacuum. This can
be good or bad:
Corollary 1:
Power expands to fill a vacuum. That thing which
expands most easily is a gas.
Corollary 2:
Anything that quickly expanded to fill a vacuum is
easily displaced by a solid.
Corollary 3:
A rapidly moving solid will hurt you if you're in its
way.
4. The person who does your job review makes the rules.
The good admins always follow those rules. See Rule 1
and the First Law.
The Summary:
Be careful what you do in that vacuum. Nobody
appointed you god. However, you can always be dis-
appointed.
The Laws Of System And Network Growth:
You can always incrementally add one more.
Sometimes the straw breaks the camels back. More often, the
camel just goes slower and slower.
The difficulty of support does not grow linearly with the
size of the site.
Eventually your site outstrips your methods, and you must
bite the bullet and move to new methods.
Corollary:
Nobody bites the bullet until there's not enough time
to do the existing work. At that point there's not
enough time to make the changes.
Adding a new kind of computer, operating system, applica-
tion, peripheral, etc, has a much higher administrative cost
than adding one more of what you've already got.
Corollary 1:
If you buy one, you may as well buy ten.
Corollary 2:
If you buy ten, you may as well buy eleven and keep one
for spare parts.
--
"Well old demon liquor has cause me trouble and folks say I'm headed for worse.
But it's no problem, I know my limit. It's just that I pass out first."
Michael Longcor "I Can't Party (As Hearty As I Partied When I Partied At 21)"
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 14:48:38 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
Subject: [comp.unix.admin, et al.] Re: Theory of SysAd
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 18:31:18 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 14:48:38 1993
From: sherwood@trublu.space.ualberta.ca (Sherwood Botsford)
Subject: Re: Theory of SysAd
Message-ID: <1993Aug3.164151.16946@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 16:41:51 GMT
The two greatest causes of system failures are sysadmins and
users. If you can keep both of these groups away from your machines,
the reliability increases dramatically.
The only absolutely secure computer system is one that is off,
embedded in concrete and dropped into deep water or an active volcano.
--
=> Sherwood Botsford sherwood@space.ualberta.ca <=
=> University of Alberta Lab Manager, Space Physics Group <=
=> tel:403 492-3713 fax: 403 492-4256 <=
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 15:14:25 1993
From: U15289@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [uiuc.general] Sexual Harassment and Women in Engineering
Date: 3 Aug 1993 15:13:52 -0400
Message-ID: <199308031913.AA14484@eff.org>
Wes Morgan writes:
>One of my worst visions regarding the U of I policy is this -- a woman
>walks in a nearly-empty room of 24 workstations, sits down next to the
>only other occupied workstation, sees something she finds offensive, and
>files a complaint. To me, the logical response is "the lab was empty;
>why didn't you simply pick another location?" Unfortunately, the U of I
>policy recommendations don't seem to cover that option. In addition,
>the recommendations completely ignore intent, which is (in my opinion)
>a cruicial proof of harassment. As I've said before, who among us would
>NOT cease such activity upon a polite request?
In this scenario, IMHO, it's a stretch for the real or imagined harassee
even to make the polite request, in lieu of picking one of the numerous
workstations available which were outside the sight lines to whatever it was
she found offensive.
Mitch Pravatiner
U15289@uicvm.uic.edu
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 15:55:59 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
Subject: [can.politics, et al.] Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 19:44:04 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 15:55:59 1993
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 93 08:51:00 EDT
d40937@iro.umontreal.ca (Jean Yves Desbiens) writes:
> their own sake. And it is harassing if after having told the person not to
> do it, it still does again and again (on different days).
Here I have to agree that this is a situation that could be
construed as harassment. I would have the same reaction if the
repeated message was not a GIF but "Jesus Saves" or some such
tripe. On the other hand, I wouldn't be whining to the
authorities to filter all superstition from the Net.
> the number of such incidents diminish if women are present in the room, that
> must mean that they know that this would bother them.
Remarkably sensitive behavior, wouldn't you say?
> big penises, nice face and great body. Many men would probably be pissed
> off.
Why?
> almost nobody except the one who brought it will be happy about the choice of
> music and some won't want any music at all. There is no real law to inforce
You can't "not listen" to a blaring radio in a small lab. The
analogy is irrelevant.
In any case, you are dealing with the wrong problem. This
person is not interested in the affect on you, but your
reaction. How you feel is something you do to yourself; how
you react is something you do to recognise his or her
existence. If you give this person a stick to beat you with,
it has to be very encouraging, and an invitation to do it
again. You are dealing with a powerless twerp who has found a
way to make things happen; good or bad, any effect is better
than being ignored. This is a cry for attention that should be
responded to with treatment, not censorship of the Net.
Cheers,
Marc
------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm Huguenot, Acadien, Quebecois, Irish and Micmac. My people
have been stepped on by just about everybody. Does this give
me the moral high ground?
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 17:24:29 1993
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mskucher@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF])
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in computer network"
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 21:04:43 GMT
jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:
>In article morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>Does either Aggerholm or Prevost-Derbecker have email addresses?
No.
>From article , by dmcanzi@ecis.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi):
>> There have been discussions of Prevost-Derbecker's efforts in a local
>> newsgroup. Nobody from the Women's Centre appears to have participated.
>> It's unlikely that they wouldn't have netnews access, so I think they
>> have chosen not to participate, and they would probaby not discuss what
>> they're doing in this newsgroup either.
>
>Is the "Women's Centre" an official department of U of W? Is it a
>"student organization" of some sort? Is it "something else"?
The Women's Centre is a student-funded and student-operated service.
>Is Prevost-Derbecker a University employee? Student? "Hanger on"?
She is a student.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 3 18:29:00 1993
From: shade@Ice.CC.McGill.CA (Leslie Regan Shade)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [uiuc.general] Sexual Harassment and Women in Engineering
Date: 3 Aug 1993 18:28:27 -0400
Message-ID:
On 2 Aug 1993, Wes Morgan wrote:
>
> Ah, but what about images of Laurie Anderson, smearing chocolate syrup
> on her breasts? Don't laugh -- that is part of her performance art, and
> I'm told that it was viewed (via videotape, not online images) as part of
> a course at this university.
>
I believe you're referring to performance artist Karen Finley. For an
interesting discussion of her NEA censorship see Chapter 30, "Just a
pro-choice kind of gal", in Edward de Grazia's excellent _Girls Lean Back
Everywhere: the law of obscenity and the assualt on genius_. (NY: Vintage
Books, 1992).
Anderson was "Oh Superman", "Big Science", etc.
Leslie Regan Shade
McGill Univ.,
Grad. Program in Communications
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 01:42:55 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dmcanzi@ecis.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 05:14:28 GMT
In article spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA writes:
>I said the social engineer has no better ally than the irresponsible citizen.
>I did not say we have to "curb obnoxious behaviour", I said we have to behave
>with some semblence of responsibility to ourselves and each other. If we don't
>do that, then we lose big, and we lose bad.
...
>The choice seems obvious to me. Don't you see that "going out with a bang"
>implies submitting to Ms. Prevost-Derbecker's agenda? The alternative does
>not involve surrendering an inch at a time; it means debating and then
>agreeing on a single line that the net won't step across, and the public
>won't support Ms. Prevost-Derbecker's efforts to push the net back from.
Saying that we should behave responsibly is useless. Most of the net
doesn't even read the groups you post to, and most of the rest will
ignore you. The people who post child porn are the least likely people
in the world to be swayed by any moral argument you might post.
Having a debate to draw The Line is useless. Once we have drawn The
Line, what magical force is supposed to stop the net from crossing it?
The line-drawers will be a tiny fraction of the usenet population,
self-appointed, without moral or legal authority. And even if they had
any moral authority, as before the people who post child porn are the
least likely to recognize it.
Usenet is a world-wide population of millions who can have their
thoughts -- and their favourite dirty pictures -- distributed
automatically to the world. In a network this big, without censorship,
it is inevitable that child porn, neo-nazi tracts, and whatever else
offends and frightens people will be posted. Where there is freedom,
there will be irresponsible behaviour, and would-be censors will always
have examples of it they can use to justify a crackdown.
Irresponsible behaviour is inevitable when people are free. If you
value freedom enough, you accept this. If you protect freedom, you do
so in spite of this. You seem to want to stop the attacks of would-be
censors by stopping irresponsible behaviour on the net. But you can't
hope to stop irresponsible behaviour on the net without joining the
would-be censors yourself.
--
David Canzi
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 05:25:21 1993
From: moran@muir.ai.sri.com (Doug Moran)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: "Interaction" with Kadie (was Re: Wanted: Assertiveness...)
Date: 3 Aug 93 19:16:54
Message-ID:
I am pursuing this thread because I want to have warning flags raised
among the readers of this newsgroup if Kadie attempts to stoke up a
similar campaign against some other site. I'll try to confine myself
to the major points.
: From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
: Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
: Subject: Re: "Interaction" with Kadie (was Re: Wanted: Assertiveness...)
: Date: 2 Aug 1993 22:35:05 -0400
: ...
: I've read your whole response and judge that the SRI's decision to not
: to respond to "unfounded, unchecked assumptions and conjectures" in
: the hope that the "thread would quickly die out and the falsehoods
: published here would be soon forgotten" played a key role in
: generating the "feeding frenzy".
In addition to disagreeing with Kadie on the general principle (below),
I disagree with him on the facts of the specific situation, presented
here because they affect my interpretation of the principle that he
is advocating.
Kadie continues to ignore the inconvenient fact that we _did_ make
a response and that it was largely ignored (note: that response is
acknowledged at the end of his post, but how many read that far).
He ignores the fact that the "feeding frenzy" was already in
progress by the time we found out about it. He ignores the fact
that the basic fabrications that drove the thread were dealt with
in that first response. He ignores the fact that we responded
immediately and completely to all requests for info and/or
clarifications on this issue (because there were no such requests,
despite an invitation in that first response).
Is it not an exercise in futility to continue to try to explain to
people who had already demonstrated their unwillingness to listen?
This disagreement over who is responsible for false information is a
disagreement on an important principle and is an underlying factor in
the other disagreements. Kadie presents what is essentially a "blame
the victim" position. In contrast, I believe that it is the
responsibility of the person making a claim to put reasonable effort
into ensuring that their "facts" are right before uttering it (where
"reasonable" varies according to the medium and other circumstances).
Kadie's position, as I read it in the context of this and the
referenced thread, is that if X utters falsehoods about Y (including
serious accusations) that Y (the target) is responsible for expending
whatever resources are necessary to halt its spread and repetition and
to reach those who had already heard it. Thus, X could spend one or
two minutes fabricating a slander and inflict hours, days or more, of
work on Y fighting the slander at no further cost to X. Kadie's
position, if it were to be widely adopted, would license slander
and wild accusations as an accepted part of serious discourse (which
would thereby cease to be serious).
: ...
: The reason there is back and forth on this is because there is a
: difference of opinion. My opinion remains that to say 'To say that
: displaying "~ftp/etc/passwd" is "an attempt to access our site's
: passwd file" is to lie.' I assume Wes Morgan and Barry Margolin stand
: by their contrary opinion, although Barry does end his article:
: ...
So Kadie still feels justified in calling a statement a lie based on
what he chooses to believe, despite good explanations to the contrary.
I judge him to be persisting in a slander.
: ...
: > - Contest announcement (<1993Feb15.161213.27529@eff.org>):
: > "... #2: Rewrite the enclosed form letter so as to make the
: > incident seem as important and dangerous as possible. You may
: > mislead; but there must be at least one interpretation of your
: > words that is not an out-and-out lie."
: > And his follow-ups.
:
: I thought this article made a good point.
It would seem that Kadie settled on a judgement and isn't about to let
anything dissuade him: He behaves as if the accusation is everything,
and that facts are mere inconveniences. First Kadie attacked us for
misconduct based upon what the student reported (although that report
had features that should have raised warning flags about its accuracy).
When the claims on which this attack was based were refuted, Kadie
then launched an attack on what we actually did. When it was argued
that this attack was unreasonable (see the above reference to Morgan
and Margolin messages), Kadie then shifted to simply presupposing
misconduct on our part.
My experience has been that an opinion can be dismissed as groundless
(hence worthless) when it remains invariant despite drastic changes
in the facts on which it is supposedly based. I doubt Kadie's is the
exception to this rule.
I will avoid responding to a variety of lesser inaccuracies and end here.
-- Douglas B. Moran
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 10:28:56 1993
From: zcirrw@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (Robin Whittle)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Wanted: Assertiveness Training for Cyberspace
Date: 4 Aug 1993 13:41:01 GMT
Message-ID: <23oe9d$dh1@aggedor.rmit.OZ.AU>
Re. Carl Kadie lists conflict resolution | From ROBIN WHITTLE
strategies and asks for more, in | zcirrw@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au
Wanted: Assertiveness Training for |
Cyberspace |
|| 1 - Review some follow-on postings. ||
|| 2 - Three factors in characterising a persons communication "strategy". ||
|| 3 - Evolutionary socio-biological perspective on these factors. ||
|| 4 - Cybernetic conclusion - delay, noise and distortion, with excessive ||
|| feedback = chaotic oscillation, so .... Take it easy! ||
Patrick J Chalmers gchlmrs@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
<233kq2$rg8@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>
> We are creating, truly, a global village. This is a
> place where the future of the entire world can be
> affected. The implications of poor communication
> are immense.
> Let's put our best thoughts forward on this issue.
Well said!
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu
<234a9rINN4po@mojo.eng.umd.edu>
Detailed critique I largely agree with.
Paul Schmidt pjs269@tijc02.uucp
<1993Jul28.131835.1213@tijc02.uucp>
Paul suggests a book, and a strategy based on trying to find a
basic motivation common to people who disagree - and explicitly
stating that motivation.
This is constructive. If both people are willing, then they
can figure out what else they have in common and find where their
paths of thought diverge. Even if it doesn't get this far it is
good for pro- and anti-gun people to agree that they both
want to reduce crime.
Jim Coffey jcoffey@Kodak.com
<28JUL199315384539@tx8600.tex.ecc.kodak.com>
>>* One non-confrontational way to accept criticism X is to reply
>> "Perhaps I did X".
> JIM - another way is to say...I'm sorry you feel that way.
> You don't admit guilt, but you do acknowledge the other person's
> right to be offended.
>>* Sandwich criticism between compliments.
> JIM - I disagree completely. Tell the truth...in a polite way.
> If you sandwich you run the risk that some people will hear only
> the bad when you meant them to hear the good, and vice versa.
> Supervisors are particularly bad about this when trying to give
> criticism. Employees are bad at selectively hearing only what they
> want to hear. To avoid misunderstanding say exactly what you mean...
> don't sugar coat.
It is good to tell the truth when it is at all possible. Carl
was not suggesting otherwise, but his strategy could distract
from the truth, confuse communication and attenuate feedback.
Like many others, I thought Carl's strategies were far from
assertive, and were excessively "soft" or "cool" compared to
the "hard", "hot" approach favoured by others.
He observed that terse communication was often misinterpreted as
being harsher (hotter) than the writer intended. His reason
for thinking this (in the example he gave) is that he got (in
his perception) "four harsh flames".
Carl Kadie kadie@eff.org
<233rmf$hej@eff.org>
> ... my experience is that 80% of the time, a perceived insult is
> the result of poor communications. 20% of the time a perceived
> insult is intended to be an insult.
Does this mean Carl recognizes that in all probability
only 0.8 of his perceived flamers meant to insult him?
ANALYZING COMMUNICATION "STRATEGIES" AND TENDENCIES
Here are the concepts underlying my analysis :-
Soft = Going easy on the unpleasant facts - by stating them in
deliberately gentle language, or adding sugar to the package
in which the facts are communicated. Hence Softwriters -
people who usually communicate this way.
Hard = Stating the unpleasant facts clearly and without attempts to
soften the impact on the reader. Hence Hardwriters.
Cool = Communicating in a way intended not to inflame the reader's
negative emotions. Hence Coolwriters.
Hot = Deliberately inflaming the reader's feeling of loathing at the
receipt of the communication. Hence Hotwriters.
Coolheads = People who are not easily ruffled or upset. They do not
perceive a text as hotter than the writer intended it to be.
They may give a lot of thought to the workings of the writer's
mind before deciding what the text really means. Eg. they may
not read the words literally, but may interpret a warm text
from a known hotwriter as being rather cool.
Hotheads = People who typically perceive a text as being hotter than
a writer intended it to be. They may not think a lot about it
and may jump to conclusions, ignore parts of the text or read
it in a different light to what the author intended. However
it happens, the hothead perceives that the writer is more of a
hotwriter than he or she really is, or that this text is more
of an insult than the writer really intended.
Thinskins = Those who are easily upset by what they perceive as an
attack.
Thickskins = Insults and the hatred of others are like water off a
duck's back.
Looking at the population, there are correlations between these
characteristics and some of these correlations are causative. They
are however independent characteristics. Consider some combinations :-
Thinskinned, hotheaded hotwriter > Prolific, paranoid flamer.
Thickskinned, hotheaded hotwriter > Flamer.
Thinskinned, coolheaded hotwriter > Does not get upset without
> genuine reason, but bites
> the head off the person
> who does cause upset.
Thickskinned, coolheaded coolwriter > Wet blanket at a flame-party.
Individuals could be mapped to points in a three dimensional space
based on these characteristics, but not now.
SIMPLIFIED EVOLUTIONARY SOCIO-BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
We are the descendants of hunter-gatherers who evolved sexually
differentiated thoughts and behaviour as well as the obvious physical
differences.
Men were strongly selected for their ability to protect their family
and tribe from attack by other men. This bred a strong physique, a
strong bluff response (physical and verbal display) and the ability to
attack brutally. Half-hearted physical attacks would have been very
dangerous. Full-on attacks carry significant risk and the male would
have adapted to attack only when it really mattered.
The strongest possible verbal displays carry little danger and could
be used routinely to make many problems go away. So physically and
verbally, the man would be a hardwriter - his output volume is strong.
In combat or under threat, his output functions would be hard and hot.
Socially, if he was too hotheaded, he would cause unnecessary trouble.
In combat, he is thickskinned, because it would be disastrous if he
was easily upset by insult or injury. This carries over, regrettably
to his social life. A man *must not* be upset at the idea of being
attacked and injured in combat. He must go boldly forth and do what a
man's gotta do - typically club another man to death - even if he has
a spear wound and has just had a rock thrown in his face.
It is pretty hard to breed a human who is this insensitive to his own
pain, but who is sensitive to the troubles of others and who is also
caring, self-aware and fussy about cleanliness and details. So women's
characteristics were optimized by evolution to perform these essential
child-rearing and man-support functions.
Males evolved to be tough (thickskinned), powerful (hardwriters), and
when under threat, hotwriters. If they were hotheaded - typically
overestimating the propensity of their communicators to insult them -
then they would get into a larger number of disputes. Since a man is
thickskinned, with hard and hot output functions, this may cause him
little upset and train people not to mess with him. I think men
evolved a degree of hotheadedness, which made people reluctant to
cross their path - but which also made them antisocial. Good social
relations with the tribe were essential, and I believe men have
evolved to subcontract that to their woman partner. (Did women invent
language to make social grooming less time consuming? ... and easier
to do indirectly? Great article by Robin Dunbar in New Scientist 21
Nov 1992)
Females and their children are physically vulnerable, so it did them
no good to get into unnecessary disputes. They would have evolved to
be coolheaded. However, women needed to cope socially in a variety of
situations - cope for themselves and on behalf of their children and
their cantankerous man.
They needed to be sensitive to the inner thoughts of their children
and of all the adults in the tribe. This could only be achieved with
introspection, and probably a thin skin.
Their output functions were not heavily biased to being hard or soft;
or hot or cold because they had to cope verbally with a whole range of
situations. However I think that women tend to be soft- and cool-
writers. (See "Competence and assertiveness are no way to persuade a
man - if you are a woman" - Linda Carli Wellesley College
Massachusetts, New Scientist 20 Feb 1993 page 9.)
Perhaps this is because a man seeks a woman who will be gentle with
his children, and so has little interest in agreeing or co-habiting
with a strident, insensitive woman. (Men still seek resourceful women.)
However, once a woman is caring for the man's children, he can't tell
her to nick off, so she can turn up the heat if it suits her.
For example, a woman might be hard and hot to get it through her man's
thick skin that he really *must* bring home more bacon and keep his
eyes off other women. She might need to be soft and cool to gain the
forgiveness of the tribe when her man makes an arse of himself in some
way.
Since the development of language there have been about 4,000 human
generations under these intense selection pressures - plenty of time
for these sexually differentiated characteristics to evolve. The
pressures have only been removed recently, so these characteristics
have remained but been diluted by random change and by selection
pressures for less aggressive men - since agriculture created a more
stable, denser lifestyle with less frequent direct threats. Men were
however still strongly selected for their proclivity to defend their
"country" by marching off to war and all humans were selected for
their proclivity to engage in the verbal preliminaries for this.
The bio-chemical mechanisms which produce sexually differentiated
characteristics are error prone. For this reason and those just
mentioned, individuals today show a less distinct set of
characteristics than that which I believed evolved in the rigors of
life until agriculture came to Western Europe about 200 generations
ago (5,000 years).
These characteristics evolved to maximize reproductive success. This
is quite different to optimizing for happiness - which is the aim of
social engineering today.
If the above characteristics are accepted as real, it would be
discriminatory to use them to limit the freedom or prejudge any group
of people or member of a group. They can however be used to help
understand behaviour which is otherwise difficult to find the source
of. This is a kick back to the Nature end of the football game called
the Nature vs. Nurture debate. Popularly, the ball is close to
Nurture's goal, but I think this will change with new evidence. (Brain
Sex - Anne Moir). I think both Nature and Nurture are important and I
argue against those who would deny the importance of either.
Next time you tick off a female colleague for some minor failure, only
to find she takes it really badly and does an excessive amount of
soul searching, think of her great-great-great-great... grandmother.
She is scolded by the tribe and goes back to the darkness of her cave
alone, trying to figure out where she went wrong, analysing every word
that was said, in a desperate effort to learn how to fit in with the
tribe. She can't fight them and probably cannot persuade them. She has
to live with them for the rest of her life and so she does whatever
she can to be accepted.
Next time you tick off a male colleague, and get an angry, abusive
response, think of his great-great-great . . . great-grandfather.
You have just trodden on his territory or threatened his status by
disparaging his boar hunting prowess. He is coming towards you,
waving his club wildly and bellowing at you to *back-off*.
ANALYSING CARL'S STRATEGIES
Actually I am concentrating on only some of his strategies. Numbers
1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14 and to a lesser extent, 10. I fully support the
rest.
1 - Output Functions
Cold - at all times. This seems to be based on the assumption that it
is *never* good to inflame someone's negative passions. In a
reply to Bob McQueer he admitted that this was an oversight -
that it might be a good thing in some newsgroups.
Soft - His strategies have a strong soft tendency. This seems
primarily intended to avoid upsetting those who are easily
upset - the thinskins and/or the hotheads.
2 - Input functions
Coolhead - Deliberately intended to quench any of his own hot-
headedness. The aim is to never overestimate how much someone
is trying to criticize or insult you.
Thick/thin skin? Carl portrays himself as being relatively thinskinned
(although Matthew T. Russotto challenges this) but his
strategies seem intended to make him behave as would a
thickskinned person - someone who was not easily upset.
So Carl's strategies push his output functions to extremes of Cold and
Soft, and are designed to force his "insult detector" input function
into the Coolhead mode. He does not try to become thickskinned, but he
tries to emulate a thick skinned person so as not to fuel a ping-pong
exchange of bad feelings.
This really cramps his style. The great communicators of this world
would resent any such restriction - and so would I! Many a man has
expressed bamboozlement at the extreme tactical flexibility with which
women deploy their communication functions. Many have wished that
their female partner had adopted Carl's strategies. The woman's
response to such a suggestion may be "But that is what makes women
interesting!". This is usually not true, but the woman's mental
agility at making such a brazenly false, self-congratulatory statement
usually leaves the man stumped and shows him that further attempts to
simplify and calm the situation will have the opposite effect.
He shuts up and concentrates on bringing home the bacon - which is
what the woman wants.
Carl's strategies differs from his "natural" behaviour so much that
people would find it difficult to know the real Carl if he assiduously
adopted them. This would be a diminution of communication and a loss
of human potential - however, to a significant degree this would be
compensated for by the reduction he achieves in conflict.
Carl says that his posted list of strategies is not complete. What
has he chosen not to tell us?? Probably those strategies which would
make us angry! The bastard! How dare he pretend to be Mr. Nice Guy
with his published list while keeping the less pleasant strategies
secret. Does anyone really know Carl? I only know him from his recent
postings which he admits are skewed to minimise any genuine reasons
for feeling malevolent towards him - or any reasons I might conjure up
in my own mind. I will not be deceived by this deliberate cyber-
chameleon! I will resist his cunning plan to manipulate my feelings!
What is this - heart-to-heart communication or brain-surgery??? The
. . . ahem . . Sorry.
There is a fundamental flaw in Carl skewing his behaviour like this -
people learn to adjust for it.
On a case by case basis, all other things being equal, Carl's
strategies typically would reduce conflict and so save a lot of
trouble and lost human potential. But things are not equal after he
has been following these strategies for a while. People get wise.
When Carl says something nice about a person, they don't concentrate
on what he is saying, they are worrying about what comes next . . .
Is this the old "sandwich criticism between compliments" routine?
Here is another example, where "Andrew" follows Carl's strategies.
Bruce wants to make Andrew feel miserable, but does not know him and
assumes he has no skewed communication strategy.
Bruce writes :-
"Andrew, you idiot, you really stuffed up X, Y and Z. How dare
you call me a dumb-terminal!".
Andrew replies :-
"Perhaps I did stuff those things up."
- despite the fact that he thinks he didn't. This leaves the whole
issue unresolved - Andrew admits no liability, and by not pursuing the
matter, he degrades the importance of the issue and Bruce's concern -
as if to say "So what if I stuffed them up?"
Andrew also replies :-
"I am really sorry you misinterpreted my "dumb-terminal"
comment. ADM3a's have always seemed beautiful to me - sleek,
stylish, no complicated options, minimal - the cyberspace
equivalent of a brick. It was really a compliment, Bruce. I
really must be more careful about saying things which can be
misinterpreted so easily. Cheers - your friend Andrew."
Now Bruce "knows" Andrew. The next time he wants to criticize or
upset Andrew, he knows he will need to wind up into hyper-flame mode.
People adapt to changed circumstances, and they soon adapt to any
obvious slanting of a person's communication strategy.
Carl's approach would save trouble in many cases in the short term,
but after the world has adjusted around him, some of the effectiveness
of his strategies would be eroded, and he would have imposed a mental
burden on some of the people he communicates with. They need to put
their communications with him through incoming and outgoing Carl-
specific mental filters in order to penetrate and correct for his
skewed communication strategies. After all, they want to talk to
*Carl* - not his nice looking, teflon coated, padded suit.
CONCLUSIONS
I have identified four orthogonal characteristics of personal
communication style. I have shown that these *may* be
genetically/hormonally influenced and significantly sexually
differentiated. A variety of other factors could affect the expression
of these characteristics and so although they may be used as an aid to
understanding, it would be wrong to base discrimination on them.
Other factors are obviously significant and well known - upbringing,
nutrition, cultural factors etc.
Carl's original discussion is about how to deliberately change our
communication strategies to optimize harmony - most specifically to
minimise conflict which causes misunderstanding.
It is self evident that people exhibit a wide range of input
functions, between cool- and hot-headedness and thin- and thick-
skinnedness. It is clear that their correspondents try to correct for
these variations. But what is really happening is that Bruce builds a
mental model of Andrew's biases, and then makes a judgment on how to
correct for them. There is at least one time delay and two or three
sources of error at work here.
In turn, Andrew builds a mental model of Bruce's input and output
functions and uses this model to re-interpret Bruce's text in an
effort to determine what is happening in Bruce's mind. He then
decides what he wants to happen in Bruce's mind, and uses his mental
model of Bruce's input functions to test possible texts before he
decides which one to post.
This is natural and desirable, to a point. When it becomes extreme
and mechanistic, it is a mindless attempt at manipulation.
If you are interested in intense, structured approaches to
communication with carefully devised techniques for understanding and
connecting with other peoples minds, then check out "Introducing
Neurolinguistic Programming - The New Psychology of Personal
Excellence" Joseph O'Connor and John Seymour. I read 56 pages, looked
at the rest and decided that the book sucks - it is fodder for the
"If I don't understand it, it must be profound" crew.
In electronics, a negative feedback path around an op-amp is a fine
thing - until you put a capacitor in which slows it down. The system
becomes resonant and starts oscillating. With Bruce and Andrew and
their complex input/output strategies, we have the human equivalent
of a loop of two amplifiers, several time delays and several sources
of noise and distortion.
One question is - How much should we correct for someone else's
(perceived) biases? In electronics as in life, if you increase the
level of negative feedback too much, under these conditions of delay
and error, chaotic oscillation will occur.
So I suggest that we should not all adopt highly compensatory
strategies for other's perceived skews. I think that a small number of
individuals adopting highly tweaked schemes may not be so bad.
I believe some compensation is warranted, but we must be careful not
to overdo it. It would be better to make the compensation explicit
and clearly identifiable rather than do it by transforming the text.
For instance, it would be better to say :-
"June, your essay is a mess, but I don't want you to get upset
about it. Here is how we can work together to get you on top
of this subject." rather than the cryptic:-
"June, there is a little bit of a problem with your essay. We
will need to do more work in this area."
Here is an explicit, non-confusing way of compensating for a person's
perceived overly sensitive input function. This still communicates
perfectly well to someone who is not super-sensitive to criticism,
where as the "little bit of a problem" would result in a false
communication.
This approach leaves the raw data alone, allows June to feel upset at
messing up her essay and states a simple fact "I don't want your to
get upset about it" which will probably help her over her upset better
than pleading or shallow attempts at ego boosting or sugar coating.
This approach is unambiguous and so there is little danger in using
it. There is a problem however if June has always been mollycoddled
and told her essays were a bit of a problem. If this is the first
time she is told her essay is a *mess*, it could be a shock. She will
survive and come to appreciate the fact that someone is prepared to be
honest and constructive with her.
The British have highly developed unspoken protocols about what should
never be spoken about plainly, and it is alienating and depressing.
Ignoring the explicit/cryptic nature of the compensation, there are
questions about when we should apply it. I assume that the strength
of compensation will be moderate if it is cryptic.
Do we apply it when we have specific knowledge about an individual?
Probably yes. This is part of being friends, talking their
language, making life easy for them. It also may perpetuate
their biases. Do we want to do this? Should we instead
treat them as we would anyone else and so hope to "encourage"
them to correct for their biases themselves? It is easy to
play "spot the value judgment" here, but who says that making
value judgments on another person's behalf is always bad??
Do we apply it when we have no individual knowledge of a person, but
some indication they may belong to a group which typically has
a skewed communication input and output functions?
Who knows? This could be a whole other discussion.
Some of Carl's strategies are attempts to counter his own skewed,
noisy and distorting input functions. I think this is a good thing -
particularly for functional communication. For personal reasons
however, it complicates things and makes communication less
spontaneous. Alcohol could be used to disable these strategies
temporarily.
"Cyberspace" sounds really impressive, but the reality of plain ASCII,
time delayed communication is that it is an impoverished medium.
There is no handwriting, no voice, no body-language, no scribbles, no
whiteout. People are busy and so they are terse and sometimes sloppy.
Given the narrowness of the communication channel, the ease with which
it can be activated, the impossibility of retraction and the doubts
about the context in which it is read, it is not surprising that
things flare up.
I support Carl's call for something to help newcomers, and I support
his many constructive strategies. I don't think we should aim to
*make* things polite or try to placate any authority which wants to
outlaw mere rudeness. Is there really such a stupid authority?
Whatever we do, lets not mince words. Write plainly and colourfully.
When people really get to know each other, they generally like each
other more than they thought they would.
Robin Whittle zcirrw@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au
Deliberate simplifications and polarizations have been
made to stop this from being even longer. Some omissions could
be complete oversights, so don't be shy about pointing them
out. This is not a criticism of Carl - only some of the items
on his posted list of strategies which he says is incomplete
and is willing to add to. This cybernetic and biological
emphasis does not mean that I think people are just machines,
or that they are purely physical.
Society for the Appreciation of Eclectic Sensibilities
9 Miller St Heidelberg Heights Melbourne 3081 Australia
Ph +61-3-459-2889 Fax +61-3-458-1736
These opinions have nothing to do with CIRCIT who give me
Internet access for privacy and (tele)communications work.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 10:43:37 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward)
Subject: Re: "Interaction" with Kadie (was Re: Wanted: Assertiveness...)
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 14:21:40 GMT
Doug Moran (moran@muir.ai.sri.com) wrote:
: I am pursuing this thread because I want to have warning flags raised
: among the readers of this newsgroup if Kadie attempts to stoke up a
The length and detail of your accusations, qualifications, and elaborations
of Carl's behavior, coupled with your reaction to the students behavior
on sri.com, makes me think that you, perhaps inadvertently, are mimicing
a paranoid obsessive.
I think I will draft a letter to the directorate of SRI mentioning just the
facts of the case and my opinion of what kind of representative I think
Douglas Moran is to SRI.
The state of the technology forces sysadmins to be hypervigilant and
illiberal people; I think that Moran's detailed pleas of persecution after
what he deliberately did to a relatively powerless student speaks
volumes about letting certain sysadmins loose in public.
--
grady@netcom.com voice/fax (707) 826-7715
compiler of Moby lexical databases, including
Moby Thesaurus, second edition: 30,000 roots, 2.5 million synonyms
finger grady@netcom.com for more information.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 11:02:30 1993
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: "Interaction" with Kadie (was Re: Wanted: Assertiveness...)
Date: 4 Aug 1993 11:01:56 -0400
Message-ID: <23oj14$r5b@eff.org>
Here is a transcript of what I believe to be all of my Feb. 1993
Netnews posting related to SRI. I've deleted or summarized quotes from
other articles when then didn't seem critical. I encourage you to read
them yourself.
Some interesting points:
I tried to tell SRI of the Netnews discussion by sending a copy
of my first article to root@sri.com and root@ai.sri.com.
My main criticism of SRI was that it referred to ~ftp/etc/passwd
as "a password file" and "our site's passwd file". I believe
this criticism to be reasonable and accurate.
The discussion highlighted people's differing expectations about
anonymous ftp. Article listed things
that we might be able to agree on.
Although I did suggest rewriting the SRI form letter to make an
incident seem as dangerous as possible, I also first suggested
rewriting to describe an incident "clearly, unhysterically, and
unambiguously". I then actually did both rewrites. I believe my
suggested rewrites provide an effective illustration of how to
write a good and bad incident report.
My next-to-last article was about the discussion itself. It tried
to answer the questions:
1. Why has the discussion lasted so long?
2. How does the length of a discussion related the importance
of the incident that starts it?
3. Does EFF "administer" comp.org.eff.talk?
4. Is it wise to ignore a discussion that you don't like?
5. Has anything good come of the discussion?
- Carl
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I've verified that on least one computer at SRI, a file called
"passwd" is publically available via anonymous ftp. I'm enclosing a
script of a anonymous ftp session.
~c root@sri.com, root@ai.sri.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
An email correponent has informed me that this is typical of the way
that anonymous ftp archives are set up. (I check ftp.eff.org; it too
has a publically accessible "passwd" file.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Memphis State University student involved, this all
started when he browsed through some of the files that SRI made (and
continues to make) available via anonymous ftp.
[WARNING: The next sentence is wrong. SRI did not contact
the chair and the student did not say that it did. -cmk 8/4/93]
He says that SRI responded by contacting the chair of his department
and accusing him of maliciously trying to break into their system.
If the student's posting is accurate, SRI defamed him. If it is their
policy to accuse anyone who browses their anonymous ftp archive of
maliciouslly trying to break into their system, I would characterize
their policy as one of reckless defamation.
<1993Feb7.195839.19165@eff.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"~ftp/etc/passwd" is generally not a password file; that is to say
that it generally contains no passwords (not even encrypted ones). It
is a file that associates user numbers with user names so "dir" will
list names instead of number.
<1993Feb8.185549.16144@eff.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
jcurran@nic.near.net (John Curran) writes:
[...]
>If they put a message out on the screen when you connect via ftp,
>which explicitely states that you're _not_ authorized to access
>files without prior permission, then that's worth heeding.
[...]
They don't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not obvious at all [that the student was trying to get more
that the ~ftp/etc/passwd]. At least as plausible is that he was
browsing what he thought was a public ftp site, saw a file named
"passwd", wondered if SRI would *really* be stupid enough to put a
password file, and so displayed it.
Facts (supplied by the student) that support this view 1) the student
used his real user ID when prompted for a passwoard 2) the student did
a "get -" rather than a "get"; that is he displayed the file rather
than copying it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[My reposting of SRI's announcement that it has put a response
on it's FTP site]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[My postings, with permission, of SRI's responses.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Hi... I manage the computer facilities at AI.SRI.COM
[...]
>On Thursday morning (4-Feb-93), someone accessed a password file which,
>while containing no sensitive information, [...]
[...]
>Mabry Tyson
>Tyson@AI.SRI.COM
So what you are saying is that the "password" file did not contain any
passwords. Call me pedantic, but I don't think a file that contains no
passwords can accurately be called a password file.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
>Hi... I manage the computer facilities at AI.SRI.COM.
[...]
>Since the posting of "I've verified that on least one computer at SRI, a
>file called "passwd" is publically available via anonymous ftp.", we've had
>a number of attempts at getting the passwd file. Since we have no way of
>knowing which of those attempts are from honest, upstanding citizens of the
>net who are simply interested in academic freedom, etc., and which might be
>from crackers who were looking for accounts and passwords to break into, we
>will follow up on these actions by a message much like the above.
[...]
>Mabry Tyson
>Tyson@AI.SRI.COM
It would be neighborly of you to include a brief summary of recent
events in that message. To withhold such information from
the other site's sys admin would be to mislead.
- Carl Kadie
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Hi... I manage the computer facilities at AI.SRI.COM.
[...]
>That afternoon we sent to the authorities at the originating site the
>following notification:
>
>>TO:
[...]
>>We logged an annonymous ftp connection from you site this morning
>>at 6:18PST. During this session there was an attempt to access
>>our site's passwd file. This is activity that is very often associated
>with hackers.
[...]
I find these last lines misleading and defamitory. The site's password
file is not "~ftp:etc/passwd". To say that displaying
"~ftp/etc/passwd" is "an attempt to access our site's passwd file" is
to lie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[Reposts from comp.org.eff.talk about using anonymous ftp to
distribution information to just a few people and whether using a
README in ~ftp/pub to announcing restrictions is reasonable.]
etc.
Subject: Re: Non-public anonymous FTP
[... quote of Barry Morgolin's note saying anonymous ftp is a reasonable
way distribute files to colleges....]
I've used anonymous ftp this way. I didn't put files in "~ftp/pub",
however, I put them in "~ftp/user/kadie".
If SRI insists that "pub" doesn't stand for "public", I don't see how
they can in good conscience refer to "~ftp/etc/passwd" as a "password
file" when complaining of a net user's activities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[More reposts about the wisdom of a private anonymous ftp site.]
This discussion seems to be mostly about differing expectations. I
wonder if there are somethings we can agree on.
[I've put stars by items I think might be enforced with rules.
I see the other items as unenforced guidelines, not rules.]
Anonymous ftp users:
* 1) obey any restrictions of which you receive notice --
you are a guest. If you believe the restrictions to be
unreasonable criticize them if you wish, but not violate them.
2) do not go out of your way to avoid receiving notice of restrictions
3) The file etc/passwd is almost certainly contains no passwords. It
is just a file listing the usernames that go along with the user
numbers of the ftp files. It allows "ls -l" and "dir" to list
names instead of numbers. Don't download it or look at it --
some admins get nervous when they notice files named "passwd"
in the ftp log.
4) On most system, public files are in the "pub" directory.
Avoid the other directories.
Anonymous ftp administrators:
* 1) Put any restrictions in the sign in and in a README file
at the top level.
* 2) Don't put passwords in ~ftp/etc/passwd.
3) If you can, avoid having a ~ftp/etc/passwd file.
4) Put only public files in "pub"
5) If a user seems to be violating your restrictions, send them the
restrictions via email thus insuring that he or she knows your
restrictions.
6) If a user violates your restrictions even after receiving notice,
contact the user's sys admin and say: "Please ask your user to
observe the restrictions we place on our anonymous ftp site."
7) When contacting the user's site, avoid mentioning the
~ftp/etc/passwd file; any such references are likely to be
misunderstood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[More reposts]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
[...]
> 2) There is something special about the passwd file.
[...]
I agree that there is something special about "/etc/passwd"; there is
a good chance that it contains encrypted passwords. I don't see that
same specialness in "~ftp/etc/passwd" because it is very unlikely to
contain encrypted passwords.
The SRI complaint form letter said: "This is activity that is very
often associated with hackers." I think it should have said "This is
activity is most often associated with folks who want to know if SRI
would really be silly enough to put passwords in an anonymous ftp
archive."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
[...]
>Anyone walking on the street:
>Anyone who leaves their front door unlocked is saying anything in his house
>is yours to take.
[...]
I think of anonymous ftp sites as businesses on Main street. If the
door is unlocked and there is no "closed" or "private" sign in the
window, I expect that my entry will not be considered tresspassing.
<1993Feb12.184946.11890@eff.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
[...]
>I agree that this (and the "office building" analogy in another message) are
>better analogies. But isn't SRI's notice exactly like a "private" sign in
>the window? Thus one who has read the notice but persists in downloading is
>committing a violation, yes?
[...]
Yes, but ...
SRI didn't "put their 'private' sign in the window". They put it in
subdirectory in a readme file. Moreover, there are no good front
windows in an anonymous ftp site; almost any notice can be innocently
overlooked.
<1993Feb13.014339.5917@eff.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Most anonymous ftp servers will suppress these messages if the
anonymous "password" starts with a "-". This is neccessary because
some (especially older) ftp client programs can't handle the messages.
<1993Feb13.160703.838@eff.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
[...]
> What should they have done?
> Contacted the student?
Probably.
>What if it had been someone else who had lied about
>his uid?
Then you would know to change your password.
> I know I'd freak if I started getting messages talking about my
>attempting to break into their system.
[...]
There was no attempt to break into the SRI system. (At best there was
exploration of an apparently open anonymous-ftp site. At worst there
was was exploration of private anonymous-ftp site. In either case,
this is not what SRI complained about.)
SRI complained "We logged an annonymous ftp connection from you site
this morning at 6:18PST. During this session there was an attempt to
access our site's passwd file. This is activity that is very often
associated with hackers."
SRI lied and mislead. They lied when they claimed that "there was an
attempt to access our site's passwd file." They mislead when they
suggested that exploration of an anonymous ftp site is an "activity
that is very often associated with hackers". (They might as well have
said that use of a computer is an activity that is very often
associated with hackers or that breathing is activity that is very
often associated with hackers.)
If you think you'd freak if SRI send their lie to you, think how you'd
feel if their send their lie to your department. The first case is an
insult; the second is defamation. In any case, they should not have
send lies at all.
<1993Feb14.160512.14305@eff.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
[...]
>That was the file's name, and he did try to access it. This must be
>a new form of the word 'lie.'
[...]
I believe most people take the phrase "our site's passwd file" as a
reference to "/etc/passwd". To use the phrase to refer to
"~ftp/etc/passwd" is (at best) unexcusably misleading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
>>What if it had been someone else who had lied about
>>his uid?
>
>Then you would know to change your password.
[...]
As several folks have pointed out, my suggestion here won't help.
Still, I'd would want to know if someone else is using my user id.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie aka Carl M Kadie) writes:
>They mislead when they
>suggested that exploration of an anonymous ftp site is an "activity
>that is very often associated with hackers".
morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>You are dead wrong.
>This is NOT what SRI said. They said that *accessing a password file*
>is an "activity often associated with hackers." That is absolutely
>true. I think you're starting to bend words a bit.
[...]
Then we are both dead wrong, because that is not what SRI said either.
They said, and I quote:
We logged an annonymous ftp connection from you site this morning
at 6:18PST. During this session there was an attempt to access
our site's passwd file. This is activity that is very often associated
with hackers.
"~ftp/etc/passwd" is not their "site's passwd file". I concede that
"access to our site's passwd file" is an "activity that is very often
associated with hackers." I maintain, however, that the student did
not attempt to access their "site's passwd file" so it is unfair
associate the student's activity with "activity that is very often
associated with hackers."
<1993Feb15.155508.27308@eff.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe that anyone has claimed that the SRI form letter is
ideal. I propose that we suggest revisions.
Contest #1: Goal: Rewrite the enclosed form letter so that it clearly,
unhysterically, and unambiguously describes the incident.
Contest #2: Goal: Rewrite the enclosed form letter so as to make the
incident seem as important and dangerous as possible. You may mislead;
but there must be at least one interpretation of your words that is
not an out-and-out lie.
Judging and Prizes: No formal judging; no prizes.
[Actual letter enclosed]
<1993Feb15.161213.27529@eff.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Contest #1: Goal: Rewrite the enclosed form letter so that it clearly,
>unhysterically, and unambiguously describes the incident.
TO:
You are listed in the NIC database as the technical contact for your
site. I am sending this note to you because this is the way that we
provide notice of the restrictions we place on our anonymous ftp
server. I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt, so that
I can be sure that I contacted the correct system adminstrator.
We logged an annonymous ftp connection from you site this morning at
6:18PST. During this session a publicly-accessible file was accessed.
This, of course, is to be expected because we are an anonymous ftp
site and because the list of restrictions we place on our site is
hidden in a subdirectory, in "README" file. Indeed, browsing anonymous
ftp sites is activity that is very often associated with good
students. The user supplied the following information as a password
when the annonymous ftp connection was established:
<"password" removed, of the form "@">
Please ask the your user to read the "pub/README" file before
accessing any other files in our archive.
=======================================================================
<1993Feb15.162757.27742@eff.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Contest #2: Goal: Rewrite the enclosed form letter so as to make the
>incident seem as important and dangerous as possible. You may mislead;
>but there must be at least one interpretation of your words that is
>not an out-and-out lie.
=========================================================================
TO:
You are listed in the NIC and/or FBI database as the technical contact
for your site. We this official notice to you because we observed
very suspicious activity and it looks like your site is to blame.
Please acknowledge (or have your lawyer acknowledge) receipt of this
message and verify that we have indeed contacted the *resposible*
system adminstrator.
We logged an annonymous ftp connection from YOUR site this morning at
6:18:31PST. During this session there was an attempt to access our
site's passwd file. This is activity that is very often associated
with hackers. I don't need to remind you that hackers have been
accused in open court of trying to cripple the 9-1-1 system, an
activity that could results in a huge number of deaths and larger
property lose.
The suspect supplied the following information as a
password when the annonymous ftp connection was established:
<"password" removed, of the form "@">
Please investigate this incident and respond.
=======================================================================
<1993Feb15.163612.27854@eff.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
[...]
>They did not say "our password file" but "our passwd file". It's stretching
>to claim that ~ftp/etc/passwd is not a passwd file.
[...]
They did not say "our passwd file" but "our site's passwd file". It's
stretching to claim that ~ftp/etc/passwd is their site's passwd file.
An aside: The fact that no one seems to be able quote the SRI phrase
from memory (I keep looking it up) is strong evidence that it is
easily misunderstood.
<1993Feb16.023838.5710@eff.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[Repost of SRI admin's announcement of terminating his site's
anonymous ftp facility]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>If you suggest that these 30+ people were all naive users who mistakenly
>downloaded ~ftp/etc/passwd (and, in most cases, ONLY ~ftp/etc/passwd),
>I'll have to laugh.
[...]
I don't suggest that all 30+ would have been naive users. But neither
should it be assumed that all 30+ had malicious intend. The SRI form
letter assumes malicious intend. It says: "During this session there
was an attempt to access our site's passwd file." Not, "During this session
file ~ftp/etc/passwd (which doesn't contain any passwords) was accessed;
this might have been an attempt to access our site's password file."
^^^^^
<1993Feb16.154537.16021@eff.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[Repost of second response from SRI]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[A repost of Barry Shein's critical response to SRI's second response]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[This is an article about this discussion itself. I've
given it another subject so that it can be more
easily identified.]
1. Why has the discussion lasted so long?
I think there are two reasons. First, everyone thought they understood
the standard practice of anonymous ftp, but it turns out that we all
had different standards in mind.
Second, the incident may have been one where there was blame on all 3
sides. This does not fit well with the standard debating technique of
showing that your side is right by showing that the other side(s) is
wrong.
2. How does the length of a discussion related the importance
of the incident that starts it?
I don't see any relation except perhaps an inverse one.
Complaints such as "this discussion have gone on too long" falsely
suppose that discussion length has something to do with importance.
(They also extend the discussion one more article).
3. Does EFF "administer" comp.org.eff.talk?
No. comp.org.eff.talk is a free speech forum. It administers itself.
4. Is it wise to ignore a discussion that you don't like?
moran@muir.ai.sri.com (Doug Moran) writes:
[...]
>Up to this point, I have refrained from responding because I was
>advised that the thread would quickly die out and the falsehoods
>published here would be soon forgotten. It has become painfully
>clear that this is not happening and that the characterization of our
>site is moving further and further from the truth.
[...]
You were given poor advice. Falsehoods should be rebutted as quickly
as possible (this is true not just on the Net, but even in
presidential campaigns.)
[...]
>Note: I am not a reader of this newsgroup and therefore I am unlikely
> to see any responses posted here. If you need a clarification
> or think that you have a useful suggestion, send me e-mail.
Be careful not to repeat your mistake twice.
5. Has anything good come of the discussion?
I've learned that standard practice for anonymous ftp is
controversial.
I've learned all about "passwd" files.
I've now believe that sys admin to sys admin messages should not
assume too much knowledge on the receiver's side, should be very
carefully worded, and should be detailed (e.g. should include log
excerpts).
I think the anonymous ftp policy I suggested was good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In article kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) writes:
>Falsehoods should be rebutted as quickly as possible (this is true
>not just on the Net, but even in presidential campaigns.)
mandel@netcom.com (Tom Mandel) writes:
>I was one of the people who so advised, Doug. Flamefests of this
>sort are generally a waste of time. Differences of opinion such
>as those expressed in this endless thread are rarely, if ever, resolved
>online. Usually it is best to ignore them and let them die down,
>although that was not the case in this instance.
[...]
While it may be safe to ignore most aspects of "flamefests", I believe
it is unwise to ignore the falsehoods. A lie should not go unchallenged.
<1993Feb22.015705.5034@eff.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 12:02:07 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: rkeller@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rod Keller)
Subject: Re: "Interaction" with Kadie (was Re: Wanted: Assertiveness...)
Message-ID: <1993Aug4.155558.20109@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 93 15:55:58 GMT
Douglass Moran
What a maroon.
It's a poem.
--
Rod Keller
rkeller@nyx.cs.du.edu
KoX
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 13:12:31 1993
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: "Interaction" with Kadie (was Re: Wanted: Assertiveness...)
Date: 4 Aug 1993 13:11:57 -0400
Message-ID: <23oqkt$s6v@eff.org>
[This is a resend. I got "morgan@sri" and "mandel@sri" confused.]
moran@muir.ai.sri.com (Doug Moran) writes:
>I am pursuing this thread because I want to have warning flags raised
>among the readers of this newsgroup if Kadie attempts to stoke up a
>similar campaign against some other site. I'll try to confine myself
>to the major points.
I did not attempted to stoke up a campaign against your site.
[...]
> Kadie continues to ignore the inconvenient fact that we _did_ make
> a response and that it was largely ignored (note: that response is
> acknowledged at the end of his post, but how many read that far).
It was not ignored; indeed, it was the center of most of the discussion.
> He ignores the fact that the "feeding frenzy" was already in
> progress by the time we found out about it.
I'm sorry it apparently took 4 days for SRI to notice the discussion,
but I don't think I can be blamed. I tried to tell you (the SRI admin)
of the Netnews discussion by sending a copy of my first article to
root@sri.com and root@ai.sri.com. The first article I posted that
could be read as critical of SRI was on "Sun, 7 Feb 1993 19:58:39 GMT"
By "Mon, 8 Feb 1993 00:42:51 GMT", 6 hours latter, Mandel, an SRI
employee, had replied to it.
> He ignores the fact
> that the basic fabrications that drove the thread were dealt with
> in that first response.
On re-reading the thread, I don't think the error(s) were the driving
force behind the thread.
I think what drove it was debate about:
1) the wisdom of having a "Non-public anonymous FTP"
2) the wisdom of posting restrictions in a README in a subdirectory
3) if "~ftp:etc/passwd" can be fairly referred to as "a password
file" and "our site's passwd file"
These are certainly the points that drove my articles.
>This disagreement over who is responsible for false information is a
>disagreement on an important principle and is an underlying factor in
>the other disagreements.
I don't believe we disagree about who is responsible for false
information. The person who makes the falsehood is reasponsible.
What we may disagree with is what to do if you are the victim of false
information. I believe that the victim should try to minimize damage
by setting the record straight as soon as possible.
>Kadie presents what is essentially a "blame the victim" position. In
>contrast, I believe that it is the responsibility of the person
>making a claim to put reasonable effort into ensuring that their
>"facts" are right before uttering it (where "reasonable" varies
>according to the medium and other circumstances).
I suppose are positions could be reconciled as:
1) a person making a claim should put reasonable effort into
ensuring that their "facts" are right.
2) the victim of a falsehood should try to minimize damage by
putting reasonable effort into setting the record straight as
soon as possible.
I'm willing to accept this.
Kadie wrote:
> : ...
> : The reason there is back and forth on this is because there is a
> : difference of opinion. My opinion remains that to say 'To say that
> : displaying "~ftp/etc/passwd" is "an attempt to access our site's
> : passwd file" is to lie.'
Morgan writes:
>So Kadie still feels justified in calling a statement a lie based on
>what he chooses to believe, despite good explanations to the contrary.
I'm sorry, I don't find the explanations convincing. Indeed, the
explanations you listed even say: "But I'm willing to admit when I'm
wrong: it's not crystal clear that he's trying to break into your
system. But it's certainly enough reason to be wary."
[...]
>It would seem that Kadie settled on a judgement and isn't about to let
>anything dissuade him: He behaves as if the accusation is everything,
>and that facts are mere inconveniences. First Kadie attacked us for
>misconduct based upon what the student reported (although that report
>had features that should have raised warning flags about its accuracy).
>When the claims on which this attack was based were refuted,
I said "If the student's posting is accurate, SRI defamed him.". I
believe that this is a fact. I did note make any claims about the
facts. I did not say or suggest that I or anyone should believe that
the student's posting was accurate.
> Kadie then launched an attack on what we actually did.
I mostly criticized references to ~ftp:/etc/passwd as "a password
file" and "our site's passwd file".
>When it was argued that this attack was unreasonable (see the above
>reference to Morgan and Margolin messages),
I'm sorry. Morgan and Morgolin's messages did not (do not) convince me
that the criticism was (is) off-base.
The next thing that happened was I read this message from you (the SRI
admin):
>Up to this point, I have refrained from responding because I was
>advised that the thread would quickly die out and the falsehoods
>published here would be soon forgotten.
To which I responded:
You were given poor advice. Falsehoods should be rebutted as quickly
as possible (this is true not just on the Net, but even in
presidential campaigns.)
Which, if I understand your article, you now characterize as:
>Kadie then shifted to simply presupposing
>misconduct on our part.
I did not see this a presupposing misconduct, merely giving what I
believed (believe) to be good advice.
>My experience has been that an opinion can be dismissed as groundless
>(hence worthless) when it remains invariant despite drastic changes
>in the facts on which it is supposedly based. I doubt Kadie's is the
>exception to this rule.
[...]
I'm aware of no drastic changes in the facts that support my opinions
that "~ftp:/etc/passwd" should not be referred to as "a password file"
and "our site's passwd file" or that it is unwise to refrain from
responding to falsehoods in the hope that they will quickly die out
and be soon forgotten.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 15:15:39 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Assertiveness Training for Cyberspace
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 93 18:32:19 GMT
Message-ID: <1993Aug04.183219.8664@utoday.com>
ubacr45@ucl.ac.uk (Mr G Toal) writes:
>Me too - I'm of the school of thought that idiot newbie postings like
>'I've just heard about this kid who's dying of cancer and wants to
>get in the Guinness book of records for collecting the largest number
>of Hawaiian bottle tops (with staples)...' should be flamed down *hard*
>- not to stop the newbie (who'll get the message quickly in private
>mail :-) ) but to make all those other newbies sit up and pay attention
>and maybe think twice before the repost some usenet idiocy themselves...
I have to disagree.
What that does is see to it that newbies looking for
quiet discourse wander off when they get flamed, and that only leaves
the people who LIKE hostility. This makes the whole net environment
hostile.
-- mitch w.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 15:15:49 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Assertiveness Training for Cyberspace
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 93 18:37:15 GMT
Message-ID: <1993Aug04.183715.8826@utoday.com>
gjb@fig.citib.com (Greg Brail) writes:
>Personally, I'm more disturbed by unnecessarily obnoxious answers to
>newbie questions than by the questions themselves. Lots of people come
>to Usenet for information. If we don't scare them away in the first
>five minutes, perhaps they'll stick around and contribute something
>the rest of us will really appreciate.
Hear, hear.
What drove me away from USENET for two years was not the
repetition--it was all the damn hostility between people I never met
before, hurling insults at each other and nursing grudges for months
and years.
It was the virtual equivalent of being trapped on the bus and forced
to listen to some semi-psychotic stranger tell you his whole family
history....
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 15:27:31 1993
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment and Women in Engineering
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 19:19:29 GMT
[A repost from email with the author's permission. I reformatted to 80
characters/line - Carl]
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 93 09:11:24 CDT
From:
Subject: Re: [uiuc.pubs.in-illinois] Sexual harassment occurs on network
It has come to my attention that my name is being taken in vain on one
of the networks. It is not the first time nor will it I am sure be
the last but I would like to set the record straight. My titles are
Assistant Dean of Students and Special Assistant to the Vice
Chancellor of Academic Affairs. I AM NOT the Dean of Sexual
Harassment! I am one of several entry ports for individuals wanting
to file informal sexual harassment charges. While our system is not
perfect I beleive we do a fine job of protecting the rights of all
involved. When a complaint comes to my attention I educate the
individual about their options. Most choose informal resolution. I
call the alleged harasser and advise him/her that an informal
complaint has been filed and that I would like to meet with them and
an advisor if they like to present the allegations. In 98% of the
cases they admit to the behavior and are willing to stop. The other
5% may go on to the formal grievance stage where a full investigation
is pursued. I would suggest that your collegue from MIT contact me
directly shaould he have any concerns about the preception that due
process is not a priority.
mary ellen
Mary Ellen O'Shaughnessey
Assistant Dean of Students
300 Turner Student Services Building
333-9183
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 15:37:41 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: "Interaction" with Kadie (was Re: Wanted: Assertiveness...)
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 18:05:21 GMT
In article grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward) writes:
>The state of the technology forces sysadmins to be hypervigilant and
>illiberal people; I think that Moran's detailed pleas of persecution after
>what he deliberately did to a relatively powerless student speaks
>volumes about letting certain sysadmins loose in public.
Oh come on. They sent what I'd consider a fairly reasonable message to
the contact person at the student's University, and then dropped it, letting
the people at the University handle it.
There were two main complaints with the actual message. The first was that
they only identified the file as "passwd" without giving it's full path,
allowing people to assume that it was talking about /etc/passwd, rather than
ftp/etc/passwd. I'd simply consider it a simple oversight, not worth tarring
and feathering someone who's "real" job isn't being an admin, but does it
because it needs to be done, when he's got the time.
The second complaint was that they considered grabbing the file to often
be associated with hacking into systems. Apparantly it is for them and some
other sites. Hence the message being sent out in the first place.
They also had a couple of nice touches in their letter. They said "a user who
identified himself as X" rather than "User X at your site," which is a
potentially important distinction, and they said that no important information
was taken.
Given the amount of specualtion going on without bothering to ask Moran
about what was going on, I can imagine that he would feel somewhat persecuted.
The first he heard about was that he had contacted the Department Head of
the student's major, accusing the student of trying to crack their passwords,
niether of which he'd done.
--
Mike Swaim |"Can she suck a golfball through a garden hose?"
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu |"No, but she can stick her tongue up my nose."
Disclamer: I need a hole in my head.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 16:22:04 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: gjb@fig.citib.com (Greg Brail)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Assertiveness Training for Cyberspace
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 20:12:42 GMT
In article <1993Aug04.183715.8826@utoday.com> wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) writes:
>gjb@fig.citib.com (Greg Brail) writes:
>What drove me away from USENET for two years was not the
>repetition--it was all the damn hostility between people I never met
>before, hurling insults at each other and nursing grudges for months
>and years.
That's why I'm grateful for threaded newsreaders. I use trn (actually,
I use the beta-test of strn as well). Once I see a particular thread
descending into name-calling and the like, I remember not to read any
more articles in that thread in the future.
greg
--
Greg Brail ------------------ Citibank -------------------- gjb@fig.citib.com
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 16:48:01 1993
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment and Women in Engineering
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 20:38:23 GMT
Message-ID:
In article kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) writes:
) In 98% of the
)cases they admit to the behavior and are willing to stop. The other
)5% may go on to the formal grievance stage where a full investigation
)is pursued.
It looks like she's not the Assistant Dean for Mathematics either...
--
+----Microsoft Code of Ethics: -------+ | hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu| OS/2
| | | Novell janitor | OS/2
| | |
+-------------------------------------| | DEL C:\WINDOWS\*.*
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 16:50:18 1993
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News
Date: 4 Aug 1993 16:49:44 -0400
Message-ID: <23p7d8$1a6@eff.org>
[See the end of this article for information about obtaining the full
CAF-News electronically and about CAF-News in general.]
Abstract of CAF-News
[Week ending jul 18 1993
[Sorry about the repost of the old CAF-News that preceded this post. I
was testing new software, and accidently ran the old.]
========================== 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.
===============================================================
[comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Student suspended : : Case 2 memoranda
[Paraphrase: (A U. of Houston student) I lost my internal appeal and
so I will be suspened for printing a system file containing a list of
users (not passwords!). Although found guilty of violating computer
policy, I have not been formally told which computer policy. I am
thinking about suing, if I can afford it. - [[Carl Kadie]]]
<21tkf8$4cd@access1.speedway.net>
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ON INTERNET - SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT
<21r6r9$s2a@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ON INTERNET - SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT
[Paraphrase: (Prof. John McCarthy) Here is the history of the
1988/1989 bans of rec.humor.funny at Stanford U. and the U. of
Waterloo. Both universities eventually restored the newsgroup.
Stanford much quicker that U. of Waterloo. [[Carl M. Kadie]]]
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ON INTERNET (*example*)
[Paraphrase: (A Greek student studying in the U.S.) The 'Hellas List',
an e-mailing list for Greeks, has been discussing the poor computer
administation at Democritus National Research Center in Athens. The
admin there responded by shutting down dial in accounts of 5 users and
has sent email to the admins of Brown U., American U., and Univ. of
Georgia convincing them to shut down mailing list or he will sue. All
3 did. 2 have since brought it back up. [[Carl M. Kadie]]]
<1993Jul13.053140.20294@eecs.nwu.edu>
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ON INTERNET - SOM
[The computer science department of the University of New South Wales
in Australia use of computers to prepare "offensive" material.
[[Carl M. Kadie]]]
<1993Jul15.044102.9347@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU>
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/MON_DD_YEAR, for example,
"pub/academic/news/jul_18_1993". The full CAF-News is also available
via email. Send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:
send caf-news MON_DD_YEAR
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 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 Aug 4 17:06:30 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: rdippold@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Assertiveness Training for Cyberspace
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 20:52:52 GMT
zcirrw@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (Robin Whittle) writes:
>Here are the concepts underlying my analysis :-
>Soft = Going easy on the unpleasant facts - by stating them in
>Hard = Stating the unpleasant facts clearly and without attempts to
>Cool = Communicating in a way intended not to inflame the reader's
>Hot = Deliberately inflaming the reader's feeling of loathing at the
>Coolheads = People who are not easily ruffled or upset. They do not
>Hotheads = People who typically perceive a text as being hotter than
>Thinskins = Those who are easily upset by what they perceive as an
>Thickskins = Insults and the hatred of others are like water off a
Flippant = Doesn't take the current thread very seriously... For
instance, the flamewar between Kadie and Moran, started under the
subject heading of "Wanted: Assertiveness Training for Cyberspace" is
highly amusing when seen in the right light. Perhaps this category
combines with others that go off on a tangent.
--
Down with the greedy Stamp Bourgeoisie! Long Live the Red Philatelic Inter-
national, leader and guardian of the world's working class philatelists and
numismatists! Proletarian stamp and coin collectors, Unite!
-- Actual front page from "The Red Philatelist," Russian magazine
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 17:19:07 1993
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: clarke@watson.ibm.com (Ed Clarke)
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in computer network"
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 20:53:37 GMT
In article , mskucher@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF]) writes:
|> The Women's Centre is a student-funded and student-operated service.
|> >Is Prevost-Derbecker a University employee? Student? "Hanger on"?
|> She is a student.
I see that there are two(!) newsgroups dedicated to her:
alt.sex.prevost-derbecker
alt.sex.prevost.derbecker
Don't know if there's any traffic in there, we don't get those groups
here. Has she made any comments on her new notoriety?
Ed Clarke
clarke@watson.ibm.com
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 19:03:42 1993
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mskucher@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF])
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in computer network"
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 22:40:51 GMT
clarke@watson.ibm.com (Ed Clarke) writes:
>mskucher@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF]) writes:
>|> The Women's Centre is a student-funded and student-operated service.
>|> >Is Prevost-Derbecker a University employee? Student? "Hanger on"?
>|> She is a student.
>
>I see that there are two(!) newsgroups dedicated to her:
>
> alt.sex.prevost-derbecker
> alt.sex.prevost.derbecker
>
>Don't know if there's any traffic in there, we don't get those groups
>here. Has she made any comments on her new notoriety?
While trying to arrange a meeting with her last week, I was told that
she was on vacation and wouldn't be available until later this week.
So I'd have to say "no". :-)
And that's only the third spelling of her name I've seen (a problem
I'm used to by now). I wonder which is correct.
I should say, though, that the Human Rights Co-Ordinator of UW has
found the articles in alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk which I've been
forwarding to him to be rather helpful. (Pending his own access to
The Net(tm), I've been forwarding the summaries provided by people
at other institutions, and he appreciates the comments.) But he too
is on vacation until this week or next week.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 19:32:57 1993
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment and Women in Engineering
Date: 4 Aug 1993 23:26:09 GMT
Message-ID: <23pgihINN2q1@mojo.eng.umd.edu>
In article kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) writes:
}[A repost from email with the author's permission. I reformatted to 80
}characters/line - Carl]
}
}Date: Wed, 04 Aug 93 09:11:24 CDT
}From:
}Subject: Re: [uiuc.pubs.in-illinois] Sexual harassment occurs on network
}
}perfect I beleive we do a fine job of protecting the rights of all
}involved. When a complaint comes to my attention I educate the
}individual about their options. Most choose informal resolution. I
}call the alleged harasser and advise him/her that an informal
}complaint has been filed and that I would like to meet with them and
}an advisor if they like to present the allegations. In 98% of the
}cases they admit to the behavior and are willing to stop. The other
}5% may go on to the formal grievance stage where a full investigation
}is pursued.
Hmmm... #1, the figures don't add up, suggesting that they are
independant guesses rather than anything solid. #2, there doesn't
seem to be a case where the grievance is informally found to be
frivolous. Seems a bit one-sided there.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 4 21:16:26 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: ubacr45@ucl.ac.uk (Mr G Toal)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Assertiveness Training for Cyberspace
Message-ID: <1993Aug4.194953.86160@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 19:49:53 GMT
In article strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>My experience with Carl Kadie over the past year or so has been quite
>opposite. In his public messages and e-mail I have always found him to be
>thoughtful, civilized, and well-informed.
>
>David
Oh bollocks. I used to think Carl was a good guy too, now I'm having
second thoughts ;-)
G
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 00:31:12 1993
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in computer network"
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1993 04:08:31 GMT
Message-ID: <1993Aug05.040831.25494@clarinet.com>
I expect she will consider the creation of a newsgroup to ridicule her
to be harassment. And it is harassment, but of course by calling for
this ban using an institutional backing, she has made herself a public
figure and as such she can be legally ridiculed.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- San Jose, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 02:27:39 1993
From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein)
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment and Women in Engineering
Date: 5 Aug 1993 05:43:51 GMT
Message-ID: <23q6mn$46@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
In article is quoted:
>[A repost from email with the author's permission. I reformatted to 80
>perfect I beleive we do a fine job of protecting the rights of all involved.
Of course. Few people believe themselves to be doing evil. The
most censorious person may think themselves fair, even liberal in what
they will permit (i.e. everything but "really bad stuff" - except their
definition of "outrageous" is another's "unremarkable").
>complaint has been filed and that I would like to meet with them and
>an advisor if they like to present the allegations.
Do the accused:
1) Have a presumption of innocence?
2) enjoy proof to a certain standard to substantiate the charge?
3) A right to a record of the hearing (we won't even discuss
public information, I don't know of any place that has that)?
Note if, as is common, the advisor must be a university
affiliate (sometimes even a faculty member), the chances of finding
someone with any "defense" experience is near nil. But there's lots of
"prosecuting" experience on the other side.
> In 98% of the cases they admit to the behavior and are willing to stop.
Here I would say the argument of reasonableness is undercut. I
don't doubt the figure, it's probably right. But as someone else pointed
out, there is NO reference to a complaint being ruled trivial. From my
observations, what the above means is that the accused is told "You MAY
be charged with Harassment, as it is alleged that you did such-and-such
(a dirty joke, a pin-up, some "political" offense). Admit you were wrong
and apologize, and you can walk. If you don't do this, the matter will
become serious and you could be convicted of violating rules and COULD
face *eviction* or *expulsion*. Now that you've been informed of your
options, what would you like to do?". The language may be more flowery,
the presentation longer and more elaborate, but this is the essence of
the situation. This is readily recognizable as a prime element of a
vague system, plea-bargaining. The accused escapes alive, the prosecutor
has another successful case to add to the record.
> The other 5% may go on to the formal grievance stage where a full
Again, I believe it. These are probably the cases where
the charge is a serious matter, and the defendant is motivated to fight
it through the system.
>is pursued. I would suggest that your collegue from MIT contact me
>directly shaould he have any concerns about the preception that due
>process is not a priority.
*shrug*. I doubt either of us will convince the other. I tend
not to send personal mail to people in situations where they might
construe it as harassment (1/2 :-)). In any case, I severely doubt that
the types of information I would be interested in, and would disprove the
contention that system basically operates by intimidation, would be available.
Specific Disclaimers: I have no doubt that Ms. O'Shaughnessey is
a very nice person. The Provost at MIT who deals with these matters is
one of the most personable individuals I've ever met. These people
probably believe they are just trying to make the world a better place.
But good intentions can lead us to quite the opposite of Heaven (*).
--
Seth Finkelstein sethf@athena.mit.edu
Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself.
(and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else).
(*) Non-US readers: This is a reference to a common saying "The road to
Hell is paved with good intentions".
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 10:05:55 1993
From: anton@hydra.unm.edu (Stanton McCandlish)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: cutting access for anon posters
Date: 5 Aug 1993 10:05:21 -0400
Message-ID: <9308051404.AA22334@hydra.unm.edu>
I've just seen it said that sites that do not extract a verifiable user ID
out of all users should be cut off from UseNet access. Two questions:
1) What authoriarian body will do this cutting off
2) what on earth makes you think that all systems receiving UseNet are
multi-user university machines with such notions as login IDs? If I
wished, I could set up my own PC to send and receive UseNet postings, via
UUCP.
PS: In case you can't tell, I fully support anonymous postings. Don't
like the posting? DON'T READ IT. You know where the delete key is. If
you don't, then you have no business participating in something as
complex as UseNet if you cannot even RTFM for your own system and
software.
--
Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. *
anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION *
FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! *
Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) *
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 10:11:48 1993
From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in computer network"
Date: 5 Aug 1993 14:09:54 GMT
Message-ID: <23r4bi$nna@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
In article <1993Aug05.040831.25494@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
> I expect she will consider the creation of a newsgroup to ridicule her
> to be harassment. And it is harassment, but of course by calling for
> this ban using an institutional backing, she has made herself a public
> figure and as such she can be legally ridiculed.
Much greater a problem, IMHO, than the legal implications of this
public ridiculing is the loss of credibility on P.-D.'s opponents'
side. I consider this newsgroup creation rather idiotic a measure to
show disagreement with her. Even if it was done by one or two
"extremists" it sheds a really bad light on the supporters of free
speech.
Olaf
--
olaf titz o olaf@bigred.ka.sub.org praetorius@irc
comp.sc.student _>\ _ s_titz@ira.uka.de LINUX - the choice
karlsruhe germany (_)<(_) uknf@dkauni2.bitnet of a GNU generation
what good is a photograph of you? everytime i look at it it makes me feel blue
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 11:57:07 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jones@pyrite (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Subject: Re: cutting access for anon posters
Message-ID: <1993Aug5.153600.7005@news.uiowa.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 15:36:00 GMT
From article <9308051404.AA22334@hydra.unm.edu>,
by anton@hydra.unm.edu (Stanton McCandlish):
> I've just seen it said that sites that do not extract a verifiable user ID
> out of all users should be cut off from UseNet access. ...
I have taught at a university for 12 years. I believe that there should
be a standard way for network users to send anonymous E-mail! Specifically,
I want there to be a way for students to contact their professor (me)
anonymously because many students really are afraid to ask questions, and
anything that makes them feel more secure when they ask will help me do
a better job of teaching!
In a broader context, I believe the net needs anonymous mailing facilties
to support services analogous to the "hotline" telephone services where
anonymity is guaranteed to callers -- there are newsgroups (consider
the substance abuse recovery or sexual abuse recovery groups) where
anonymity is almost certainly essential to the role of the group.
For that matter, the right of authors to use a pseudonym has long been
respected in the paper publishing business. Mark Twain and Lewis Carroll
weren't frowned on for publishing under assumed names, and in the case of
Lewis Carroll magnificent literary works, I suspect that his pseudonym
was actually useful in isolating his literary life from his life as a
respectable logician at a well known university.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 12:35:45 1993
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in computer network"
Message-ID:
Date: 5 Aug 93 16:26:04 GMT
s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) wrote:
>brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>> I expect she will consider the creation of a newsgroup to ridicule her
>> to be harassment. And it is harassment, but of course by calling for
>> this ban using an institutional backing, she has made herself a public
>> figure and as such she can be legally ridiculed.
>
>Much greater a problem, IMHO, than the legal implications of this
>public ridiculing is the loss of credibility on P.-D.'s opponents'
>side. I consider this newsgroup creation rather idiotic a measure to
>show disagreement with her. Even if it was done by one or two
>"extremists" it sheds a really bad light on the supporters of free
>speech.
Agreed; one would think that proponents of free expression would realize
that extreme demonstrations, such as this, can do significant harm to their
cause.
One person's extreme action can have a greater impact than dozens of
rational, logical comments.
If the person responsible for these newgroup messages is reading, please
issue an rmgroup message for them. They don't help *at all*.
--Wes
--
Wes Morgan - University of Kentucky - morgan@engr.uky.edu
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer E/S admins - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
GCS/E/MU d--- -p+ c++ l+ m* s++/++ !g w+ t+ r
gharshana-neti -- mental floss?
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 12:57:48 1993
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in computer network"
Date: 5 Aug 1993 17:48:31 +0100
Message-ID: <23rdkv$6nl@news.mantis.co.uk>
s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:
>Much greater a problem, IMHO, than the legal implications of this
>public ridiculing is the loss of credibility on P.-D.'s opponents'
>side. I consider this newsgroup creation rather idiotic a measure to
>show disagreement with her. Even if it was done by one or two
>"extremists" it sheds a really bad light on the supporters of free
>speech.
And there I was thinking it was a joke...
mathew
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 13:24:07 1993
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mskucher@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF])
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in computer network"
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 16:57:25 GMT
s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:
>brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>> I expect she will consider the creation of a newsgroup to ridicule her
>> to be harassment. And it is harassment, but of course by calling for
>> this ban using an institutional backing, she has made herself a public
>> figure and as such she can be legally ridiculed.
>
>Much greater a problem, IMHO, than the legal implications of this
>public ridiculing is the loss of credibility on P.-D.'s opponents'
>side. I consider this newsgroup creation rather idiotic a measure to
>show disagreement with her. Even if it was done by one or two
>"extremists" it sheds a really bad light on the supporters of free
>speech.
It is to be expected. We've established already that with every
freedom there are those who abuse it. In part, that's what this
debate is all about.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 13:41:55 1993
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Message-ID:
Date: 5 Aug 93 17:34:23 GMT
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) wrote:
>In article grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward) writes:
>>The state of the technology forces sysadmins to be hypervigilant and
>>illiberal people; I think that Moran's detailed pleas of persecution after
>>what he deliberately did to a relatively powerless student speaks
>>volumes about letting certain sysadmins loose in public.
>
> Oh come on. They sent what I'd consider a fairly reasonable message to
>the contact person at the student's University, and then dropped it, letting
>the people at the University handle it.
Indeed; the hyperreaction of MSU's admins was never really discussed,
although it was certainly the most critical to the student.
--Wes
--
Wes Morgan - University of Kentucky - morgan@engr.uky.edu
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer E/S admins - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
GCS/E/MU d--- -p+ c++ l+ m* s++/++ !g w+ t+ r
gharshana-neti -- mental floss?
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 13:59:11 1993
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment and Women in Engineering
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 17:51:18 GMT
Mary Ellen O'Shaughnessey , via Carl Kadie, said:
>
>I AM NOT the Dean of Sexual Harassment! I am one of several entry ports
>for individuals wanting to file informal sexual harassment charges.
>I call the alleged harasser and advise him/her that an informal
>complaint has been filed and that I would like to meet with them and
>an advisor if they like to present the allegations. In 98% of the
>cases they admit to the behavior and are willing to stop. The other
>5% may go on to the formal grievance stage where a full investigation
>is pursued.
I'll assume that only 2% go to formal grievances, instead of 5%.....
I'm somewhat concerned about the fact that she didn't classify any
complaints as "frivolous." It seems that everyone either admits
guilt or goes through formal due process. Informal discussions are
fine; in fact, I champion them in many situations. However, I would
hope that frivolous complaints are dismissed out of hand. Do UIUC
ever tell a complainant that their complaint is baseless or out of
place?
--Wes
--
Wes Morgan - University of Kentucky - morgan@engr.uky.edu
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer E/S admins - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
GCS/E/MU d--- -p+ c++ l+ m* s++/++ !g w+ t+ r
gharshana-neti -- mental floss?
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 15:10:22 1993
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Date: 5 Aug 1993 15:09:48 -0400
Message-ID: <23rlts$93s@eff.org>
morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
[...]
>Indeed; the hyperreaction of MSU's admins was never really discussed,
>although it was certainly the most critical to the student.
[...]
There was a bit of discussion on this. Here are some
excerpts from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/feb_07_1993, etc.:
From the SRI letter to MSU:
[...]
>We logged an annonymous ftp connection from you site this morning
>at 6:18PST. During this session there was an attempt to access
>our site's passwd file. This is activity that is very often associated
>with hackers. The user supplied the following information as
>a password when the annonymous ftp connection was established:
>
> <"password" removed, of the form "@">
>
>Please investigate this incident and respond.
>
>
[...]
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: Legal Tangles During FTP at SRI
Message-ID:
Date: 15 Feb 93 01:44:33 GMT
[...]
SRI's working with incomplete information, and they know it. They sent
their concerns to the people they felt could evaluate the situation and
handle it properly. It turns out that they were wrong, and the people at
MSU went nuts. That's MSU's responsibility, not SRI's.
===================
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Legal Tangles During FTP at SRI
Message-ID:
Date: 15 Feb 93 13:43:48 GMT
[...]
Let's place the blame where it *really* lies, eh? SRI did not lie, nor
did they mislead. I think that SRI has become the Juicy Corporate Target
du jour..........we should really be discussing the overreaction of the
University staff, eh?
============
From caf-talk Caf Feb 15 09:06:23 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: Legal Tangles During FTP at SRI
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 14:00:28 GMT
[...]
No, they can't! Most of the participants in this discussion seem
intent on crucifying SRI as this month's Mr. Evil Corporate Entity;
that's a load of crud. We *should* be trying to understand why the
university in question (Memphis State, I believe) went ballistic over
a rather mild-mannered note that said, essentially, "Hey, we noticed
this; it might mean something. Could you check it out?"
I've received (and sent) many such notices, covering everything from
cracking investigations to finger wars to mailbombs. They're all just
information; any admin who goes nuts on the basis of some third party's
opinion/observation isn't worth his salt. Sure, these things can and
should be investigated; however, it's the actions of MSU that went over
the line, *NOT* SRI.
=====================
From caf-talk Caf Feb 15 12:23:36 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Legal Tangles During FTP at SRI
Message-ID: <1993Feb15.111059.1785@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 15 Feb 93 11:10:59 EST
[...]
yes, the university overreacted. but SRI overreacted first, & never
did anything to curb the possibility of things getting out of hand
on the other end. they made insinuations that could be (and were)
easily misunderstood.
=================
From caf-talk Caf Feb 17 10:14:08 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Legal Tangles During FTP
Message-ID:
Date: 17 Feb 93 01:05:52 GMT
[...]
Important note: several people in defending our actions have said that
it was not us, but the sysadmins at the student's university, who over-
reacted. Be careful: the conclusion that they overreacted is based on
the assumption that they did what the student claims and that his action
was an isolated event. I don't know whether or not this is true, and
I don't think any of you do either. Furthermore, if the student's
university is governed by the usual set of privacy laws and policies,
the facts need to settle this issue are likely to be protected. Thus,
if the sysadmins had good reason for acting as they did, they are
unlikely to be able to reveal those reasons. And if they didn't,
they can use "privacy rights" to hide that. Repeating the point: don't
jump to conclusions based upon a presentation from just one side.
[...]
=====================
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 15:32:55 1993
From: st20e@Rosie.UH.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: "Interaction" with Kadie (was Re: Wanted: Assertiveness...)
Date: 5 Aug 1993 19:26:11 GMT
Message-ID: <23rmsj$4i1@menudo.uh.edu>
In article , moran@muir.ai.sri.com (Doug Moran) writes:
>I am pursuing this thread because I want to have warning flags raised
>among the readers of this newsgroup if Kadie attempts to stoke up a
>similar campaign against some other site. I'll try to confine myself
>to the major points.
>
> : From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
> : Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
> : Subject: Re: "Interaction" with Kadie (was Re: Wanted: Assertiveness...)
> : Date: 2 Aug 1993 22:35:05 -0400
> : ...
> : I've read your whole response and judge that the SRI's decision to not
> : to respond to "unfounded, unchecked assumptions and conjectures" in
> : the hope that the "thread would quickly die out and the falsehoods
> : published here would be soon forgotten" played a key role in
> : generating the "feeding frenzy".
>
>In addition to disagreeing with Kadie on the general principle (below),
>I disagree with him on the facts of the specific situation, presented
>here because they affect my interpretation of the principle that he
>is advocating.
> Kadie continues to ignore the inconvenient fact that we _did_ make
> a response and that it was largely ignored (note: that response is
> acknowledged at the end of his post, but how many read that far).
I know I didn't... It just got too long... :-)
> He ignores the fact that the "feeding frenzy" was already in
> progress by the time we found out about it. He ignores the fact
> that the basic fabrications that drove the thread were dealt with
> in that first response. He ignores the fact that we responded
> immediately and completely to all requests for info and/or
> clarifications on this issue (because there were no such requests,
> despite an invitation in that first response).
>
> Is it not an exercise in futility to continue to try to explain to
> people who had already demonstrated their unwillingness to listen?
>
>This disagreement over who is responsible for false information is a
>disagreement on an important principle and is an underlying factor in
>the other disagreements. Kadie presents what is essentially a "blame
>the victim" position. In contrast, I believe that it is the
>responsibility of the person making a claim to put reasonable effort
>into ensuring that their "facts" are right before uttering it (where
>"reasonable" varies according to the medium and other circumstances).
>Kadie's position, as I read it in the context of this and the
>referenced thread, is that if X utters falsehoods about Y (including
>serious accusations) that Y (the target) is responsible for expending
>whatever resources are necessary to halt its spread and repetition and
>to reach those who had already heard it. Thus, X could spend one or
>two minutes fabricating a slander and inflict hours, days or more, of
>work on Y fighting the slander at no further cost to X. Kadie's
>position, if it were to be widely adopted, would license slander
>and wild accusations as an accepted part of serious discourse (which
>would thereby cease to be serious).
As this seems to be slander, (I am not saying it is, as I don't have all the
facts) did your company look into a law suit against Mr. Kadie? It seems that
may be the only way to settle things when they get this far out of hand.
Perhaps we, as users, aught to set up an Internet Arbetration board... :-)
Lee Sharp
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 15:33:24 1993
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: cutting access for anon posters
Date: 5 Aug 1993 15:32:50 -0400
Message-ID: <23rn92$9ai@eff.org>
jones@pyrite (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) writes:
[...]
>I have taught at a university for 12 years. I believe that there should
>be a standard way for network users to send anonymous E-mail!
I think you point out three different degrees/types of anonymity.
Type 1: The ability to agree to *receive* anonymous email:
>Specifically, I want there to be a way for students to contact their
>professor (me) anonymously because many students really are afraid to
>ask questions, and anything that makes them feel more secure when
>they ask will help me do a better job of teaching!
Type 2: The ability to publicially speak anonymously:
>In a broader context, I believe the net needs anonymous mailing facilties
>to support services analogous to the "hotline" telephone services where
>anonymity is guaranteed to callers -- there are newsgroups (consider
>the substance abuse recovery or sexual abuse recovery groups) where
>anonymity is almost certainly essential to the role of the group.
Type 3: The ability to speak pseudonymiously though an editor
(who reads what you right before transmitting it):
>For that matter, the right of authors to use a pseudonym has long been
>respected in the paper publishing business. Mark Twain and Lewis Carroll
>weren't frowned on for publishing under assumed names, and in the case of
>Lewis Carroll magnificent literary works, I suspect that his pseudonym
>was actually useful in isolating his literary life from his life as a
>respectable logician at a well known university.
These are not the same. Type 1 and Type 3 are pretty noncontroversial
are likely to be supported. Type 2 ....?
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 16:43:55 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge)
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 20:29:13 GMT
In article G08@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca, dmcanzi@ecis.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
> Saying that we should behave responsibly is useless. Most of the net
> doesn't even read the groups you post to, and most of the rest will
> ignore you. The people who post child porn are the least likely people
> in the world to be swayed by any moral argument you might post.
Not necessarily. People do observe limits.
Look, repressive governments look like poor candidates for moral pressure,
too. But Amnesty's tactics (write polite letters appealing for the release
of prisoner X... do work, because even heads of governments can't ignore
pressure from thousands of people.
Look, when someone threatens to actually disrupt the net itself (by mail
bombing, or setting up a demon to post uuencoded core dumps to a group),
members of the group do defend it. We do enforce the basic minimum of
behavoiur required to make the net usable.
> Having a debate to draw The Line is useless. Once we have drawn The
> Line, what magical force is supposed to stop the net from crossing it?
> The line-drawers will be a tiny fraction of the usenet population,
> self-appointed, without moral or legal authority. And even if they had
> any moral authority, as before the people who post child porn are the
> least likely to recognize it.
The same "magic force" that restrains mail bombings.
As for a "tiny fraction", well, right now the people who spring to the
"defence" of "the net" likewise represent a tiny fraction of the overall
population, heavily subsidized, without a really good reason the public
(which has to buy stamps and pay long distance rates) should help pay
for us to distribute questionable material via the net.
> Usenet is a world-wide population of millions who can have their
> thoughts -- and their favourite dirty pictures -- distributed
> automatically to the world. In a network this big, without censorship,
> it is inevitable that child porn, neo-nazi tracts, and whatever else
> offends and frightens people will be posted. Where there is freedom,
> there will be irresponsible behaviour, and would-be censors will always
> have examples of it they can use to justify a crackdown.
As I have said before, I don't see a one-sided agenda here. Nobody has
presented a shred of a scintilla of evidence that Ms. Prevost-Derbecker
has any concerns beyond the ones she has stated: the use of a very busy,
very expensive system to distribute material that she (and many other
people) believe promotes the rape of women and children.
I don't personally agree with her. I don't think censoring the net makes
sense, either technologically or politically. But I have seen few cogent
arguments advanced here in favour of this freedom. I have seen no arguments
that address the concerns about how we use this wonderful free sandbox.
Most of the arguments suggest that only a vaguely defined "they" would
raise such concerns, so trying to address concerns about the ethics of
using the net makes me one of "them".
Well, I don't accept the "them" and "us". I think we can educate people
about the standards the world community requires of the net without
cutting off userids, deleting categories of newsgroups, or vetting
newsfeeds. And I think if we don't accept the need for responsibility,
we won't have very much freedom left.
> Irresponsible behaviour is inevitable when people are free. If you
> value freedom enough, you accept this. If you protect freedom, you do
> so in spite of this. You seem to want to stop the attacks of would-be
> censors by stopping irresponsible behaviour on the net. But you can't
> hope to stop irresponsible behaviour on the net without joining the
> would-be censors yourself.
No, I don't want to stop the attacks of the censors by stopping
irresponsible behaviour. I'd campaign for a non-coercive solution to
irresponsible behaviour on the net even if Ms. Prevost-Derbecker had
never raised her concerns. I don't consider irresponsible behaviour
an "inevitable" aspect of freedom. In fact, irresponsible behaviour renders
people less free. Protecting freedom in spite of irresponsible behaviour
has a futility that resembles bailing a boat in spite of the gaping hole
in the bottom.
John G. Spragge --- spraggej@jeff-lab.queensu.ca --- standard disclaimers apply
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 18:01:52 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.folklore.computers,alt.flame,alt.religion.kibology,talk.bizarre,alt.religion.computers
From: sdm7g@elvis.med.Virginia.EDU (Steven D. Majewski)
Subject: Re: "Interactions" with "Kadie" and "Moran"
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 19:26:45 GMT
In article ,
Grady Ward finally figures it ALL out for us:
>Doug Moran (moran@muir.ai.sri.com) wrote:
>: I am pursuing this thread because I want to have warning flags raised
>: among the readers of this newsgroup if Kadie attempts to stoke up a
>
>
>The length and detail of your accusations, qualifications, and elaborations
>of Carl's behavior, coupled with your reaction to the students behavior
>on sri.com, makes me think that you, perhaps inadvertently, are mimicing
>a paranoid obsessive.
>
You guessed right, Grady! Neither Doug Moran nor Carl Kadie are
real persons - they are ai's: this thread is an example of what
happens when you turn Doctor and Parry loose on each other!
"Doug" has, of course, been programmed to deny this.
"Carl" has been programed with a rudimentary sense of humour, so
"he" may actually admit it, knowing that that confession will only
confuse us more. Come on, "Carl": prove it - send us a core dump!
[ I have heard a rumour that "Doug" was written by the same guy that
wrote "BIFF" : James "Kibo" Parry ! ]
-- Steven D. Majewski
BTW: I've tacked on comp.ai, comp.ai.philosophy and a few others on
to the distribution, just in case anyone has missed out on this
discussion! ;-)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 18:02:00 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.folklore.computers,alt.flame,alt.religion.kibology,talk.bizarre,alt.religion.computers
From: sdm7g@elvis.med.Virginia.EDU (Steven D. Majewski)
Subject: Re: "Interactions" with "Kadie" and "Moran"
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 19:34:18 GMT
Re: crossposting of previous message:
>Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,
> alt.culture.usenet,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,
> alt.folklore.computers,alt.flame,alt.religion.kibology,
> talk.bizarre,alt.religion.computers
Sorry about that!
I've been informed that alt.religion.kibology is a *MODERATED* group,
strictly for postings by ai's.
- Steve
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 18:27:43 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Where's the "Banned Computer Uses" list?
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:34:15 GMT
Karl,
Please remove the University of Massachusetts at Boston from your list
of institutions. The excerpt you are quoting is not University of
Massachusetts at Boston policy, nor is it a policy of the Department
of Math and Computer Science. It is an out-of-context excerpt from a
personal opinion posting which I made almost two years ago.
Isn't there some statute of limitation on these things?
thanks, Betsy
System Administrator Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston Phone : 617-287-6448
100 Morrissey Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
--
System Administrator Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston Phone : 617-287-6448
100 Morrissey Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 19:32:19 1993
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Date: 5 Aug 1993 22:45:24 GMT
Message-ID: <23s2i4INNaao@mojo.eng.umd.edu>
In article spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA writes:
>
>As for a "tiny fraction", well, right now the people who spring to the
>"defence" of "the net" likewise represent a tiny fraction of the overall
>population, heavily subsidized, without a really good reason the public
>(which has to buy stamps and pay long distance rates) should help pay
>for us to distribute questionable material via the net.
Now you've accepted their authority to censor.
>Well, I don't accept the "them" and "us". I think we can educate people
>about the standards the world community requires of the net without
>cutting off userids, deleting categories of newsgroups, or vetting
>newsfeeds. And I think if we don't accept the need for responsibility,
>we won't have very much freedom left.
If we accept the standards "the world community requires", then we ARE
censored. And if it is not done without cutting off userids, it
simply won't happen-- you can't enFORCE such things without FORCE
>people less free. Protecting freedom in spite of irresponsible behaviour
>has a futility that resembles bailing a boat in spite of the gaping hole
>in the bottom.
No, it's like bailing a boat in spite of the gaping hole at the TOP.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 20:42:58 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge)
Subject: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 00:31:48 GMT
In article 7M9@netcom.com, grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward) writes:
> I think I will draft a letter to the directorate of SRI mentioning just the
> facts of the case and my opinion of what kind of representative I think
> Douglas Moran is to SRI.
I don't think Mr. Grady really means to do this (so please don't flame),
but his post has raised what I consider an interesting issue. When can
a net.community.member (assuming such a beast exists) ethically get onto
a site postmaster to complain about the behaviour of another user?
I can think of three situations in which I would consider it ethically possible
to complain about another user:
1) if they disrupted or threatened to disrupt my site (mail bombings, etc.)
2) if they posted something that might, by its presence on our server, create
legal problems for the university.
3) if they aimed an unambiguous threat in my direction
I would not personally complain about another user's opinions, no matter how
I despised them. I would refrain from doing so with particular care if I
thought that someone might construe a complaint as a request to cut a person's
access off on the grounds that their opinions brought disrepute on their
institution.
John G. Spragge --- spraggej@jeff-lab.queensu.ca --- standard disclaimers apply
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 20:52:11 1993
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Where's the "Banned Computer Uses" list?
Date: 5 Aug 1993 20:51:38 -0400
Message-ID: <23s9uq$bl9@eff.org>
betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>Please remove the University of Massachusetts at Boston from your list
>of institutions. The excerpt you are quoting is not University of
>Massachusetts at Boston policy, nor is it a policy of the Department
>of Math and Computer Science. It is an out-of-context excerpt from a
>personal opinion posting which I made almost two years ago.
[...]
Actually, 1 year ago this week.
Here is entry in question from the Banned Computer Material 1992 list:
"All .plan files at the *University of Massachusetts at Boston* that would
not be given a PG-13 rating
news/cafv02n39:
"
I'm enclosing a copy of your articles.
(Archived in ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/batch/aug_02_1992 and aug_09_1992.)
If the list entry was inaccurate, please tell me how, and I'll change
it. If the entry is now out of date (e.g. the ban has been lifted),
please tell me and I'll add a note to the entry.
- Carl
===================
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:56:25 GMT
In article <1992Jul21.142535.21786@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>If other students have humorous or otherwise irrelevant text in their
>.plan files and have not been told to remove them, then you should document
>this (print out a session where you get the time & date, and finger
>a bunch of other students). This would show that the university is
>telling you, and only you, to remove your .plan based on the content,
>and not on disk space, or using .plan for what it is intended (does
>anyone use .plan for what it is intended?) That would clearly make it a
>first amendment case, and the U would almost certainly lose.
I still don't see why. What's unconstitutional about our policy of
setting an obsenity standard, for example? Our policy is that all
finger info and public X-terminal screens should be of roughly PG-13
offensiveness or less. We ask users to remove obscene or blatantly
sexual .plan files. For example, last week a user had an "ansi art"
.plan which repeatedly blasted a four-letter word acrss the screen.
Prior to him, another user was asked to remove a crude sexual
limerick. Both users complied without complaint... I don't think they
really felt that strongly about it. I get complaints from professors
when we allow these to remain.
It seems to me that we are applying acommon "community standard"
to this material.
--
System Administrator Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
=============================
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Message-ID:
Date: 3 Aug 92 20:58:29 GMT
In article <1992Jul30.074946.15202@ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>In article betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>:I still don't see why. What's unconstitutional about our policy of
>:setting an obsenity standard, for example? Our policy is that all
>:finger info and public X-terminal screens should be of roughly PG-13
>:offensiveness or less.
>My first thought when I read this was: "I wonder how many of their
>users are under 13?"
At least half a dozen.
Also it seemed a reasonable measure of obscenity...it *is* harassment
if people in the workplace are exposed to unsolicited obscene
material.
We alow folks to have ANYTHING THEY WANT in their private files and to
make ANYTHING THEY WANT publicly readable. They may create any mailing
list they want, and post to usenet within the standard guidelines
distributed in Comp.news.newusers etc.
ALL we are limiting is what may be displayed in certain public,
unsolicited areas... mainly finger (which is considered a systems
tool) and publicly visible X-terminal screens.
If someone wanted to post the lyrics to cop killer, we would NOT ban
it from the system, we would just ask them to replace the message with
a pointer to a publicly readable file.
This isn't censorship, and it's not an "unreasonable hardship" to
those who which to read this material. It simply makes accessing
this material a matter of conscious choice. I think it's analagous to
making users check out a library book, or take the book from an open
stack, as opposed to posting the contents of the book on the walls.
If we limited access in any way, or made users go through any
paperwork to get acess, I think that would be censorship.
--
System Administrator Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
================================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 21:21:10 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 01:04:11 GMT
spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge) writes:
>I can think of three situations in which I would consider it
>ethically possible to complain about another user:
[...]
> 2) if they posted something that might, by its presence on our
> server, create legal problems for the university.
[...]
I would modify this to "if they posted something that likely violates
laws in both their and our jurisdiction."
Reasons:
"might ... create legal problems" is too weak a standard; almost
anything might create legal problems.
The Middle East Technical University in Turkey forbids Listserv
discussions critical of the Republic of Turkey are forbidden and will
be prosecuted. If I post something critical of the Republic of Turkey
(like I think this rule/law stinks), I don't think someone in Turkey
should complain to my sys admin.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
policies/metu.bitnet
=================
* Turkey -- Middle East Technical U
Rules of Network Usage for Middle East Technical University in Ankara, Turkey.
(critiqued)
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/policies/metu.bitnet
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/policies metu.bitnet
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 5 23:43:42 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 03:24:59 GMT
John G. Spragge (spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA) wrote:
: I don't think Mr. Grady really means to do this (so please don't flame),
: but his post has raised what I consider an interesting issue. When can
: a net.community.member (assuming such a beast exists) ethically get onto
: a site postmaster to complain about the behaviour of another user?
The point is, my complaining to Moran's boss or postmaster is analogous
to him complaining about the student's undamaging behavior to his system.
SRI/Moran argues: "Is it my fault if the student's sysadmin overreacts to
a statement of fact concerning that student's behavior and my opinion
that it is like a cracker?"
I argue in return: "That is reasonable. Then you certainly won't mind
my opinion comparing your behavior to a paranoic obsessive to a person
or persons who have power over *you*. Is it my fault if they overreact
and ask you to rein in your bile?
SRI is completely in the wrong here. They are damaging their credibility
by punishing a person of far lesser power who only crime was curiosity
abetted by a slack ftp administration. Their reputation has been
severely diminished in my eyes because of this entire episode.
And every day that Moran et all. at SRI do not simply apologize and come up
with a rational policy concerning ftp access it erodes even more.
--
grady@netcom.com voice/fax (707) 826-7715
compiler of Moby lexical databases, including
Moby Thesaurus, second edition: 30,000 roots, 2.5 million synonyms
finger grady@netcom.com for more information.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 01:42:44 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 04:22:35 GMT
In article spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA writes:
>
>I don't think Mr. Grady really means to do this (so please don't flame),
>but his post has raised what I consider an interesting issue. When can
>a net.community.member (assuming such a beast exists) ethically get onto
>a site postmaster to complain about the behaviour of another user?
>
>I can think of three situations in which I would consider it ethically possible
>to complain about another user:
>
> 1) if they disrupted or threatened to disrupt my site (mail bombings, etc.)
> 2) if they posted something that might, by its presence on our server, create
> legal problems for the university.
> 3) if they aimed an unambiguous threat in my direction
I've sent complaints to two sites about their users. In both cases the users
had decided to crosspost an opinion to every newsgroup their site gets, and
after reading the message for the 10th or 12th time, I get fed up. (And this
is also well after sending mail to the offending user.)
Generally the message is something of the form, "User X appears to be posting
this to every newsgroup you get. Could you please ask him to stop?" I figure
that the guy can't read all the newsgroups he's posting to, and he may not
know about or may ignore any mail he gets (since it's probably going to be
hate mail).
--
Mike Swaim |"Can she suck a golfball through a garden hose?"
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu |"No, but she can stick her tongue up my nose."
Disclamer: I lie.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 02:31:02 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1993 05:57:40 GMT
Message-ID: <1993Aug06.055740.3121@clarinet.com>
I'm sure there's little that sysadmins dread more than another note
from USENET saying, "I don't like your user X for doing Y." I expect
it must make some sites want to not bother being on the net.
I expect people should refrain from comments to sysadmins unless:
a) The conduct violates the law at the site in question
b) Attempts to politely ask the user to rectify the problem have failed.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- San Jose, CA 408/296-0366
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 04:10:25 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 06:42:41 GMT
In article grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward) writes:
>
>SRI is completely in the wrong here. They are damaging their credibility
>by punishing a person of far lesser power who only crime was curiosity
>abetted by a slack ftp administration. Their reputation has been
>severely diminished in my eyes because of this entire episode.
The student in question ftp'd the site, did a get of the README file
(and if I remember correctly, even said that he did "get -" to print it
to his screen), got the passwd file in question, and then logged out,
without touching any of the other files. Wouldn't you consider that even
SLIGHTLY suspicious?
--
Mike Swaim |"Can she suck a golfball through a garden hose?"
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu |"No, but she can stick her tongue up my nose."
Disclamer: I lie.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 06:24:08 1993
From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in computer network"
Date: 6 Aug 1993 10:22:15 GMT
Message-ID: <23tbcn$qpd@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
In article mskucher@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF]) writes:
> >side. I consider this newsgroup creation rather idiotic a measure to
> >show disagreement with her. Even if it was done by one or two
> >"extremists" it sheds a really bad light on the supporters of free
> >speech.
> It is to be expected. We've established already that with every
> freedom there are those who abuse it. In part, that's what this
> debate is all about.
Right, but now explain this to people who are complaining about what
they consider to be harrassment. It is already difficult to defend
free speech if one accepts that this implies that abuse can't be
stopped (I don't question this). But there are much better ways, IMHO,
than to tell them: "Freedom is first of all the freedom to harrass
*you*." NOT.
Olaf
--
olaf titz o olaf@bigred.ka.sub.org praetorius@irc
comp.sc.student _>\ _ s_titz@ira.uka.de LINUX - the choice
karlsruhe germany (_)<(_) uknf@dkauni2.bitnet of a GNU generation
what good is a photograph of you? everytime i look at it it makes me feel blue
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 06:41:38 1993
From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Responsible behaviour
Date: 6 Aug 1993 10:39:37 GMT
Message-ID: <23tcd9$r4s@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
In article <23klg6INNhfm@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> Once you define some actions as "responsible" and others as
> "irresponsible", you are a infinitesimal distance away from declaring
> that action must be taken against the "irresponsible" before they hurt
> the "responsible". Successfully labeling someone "irresponsible" essentially
> deprives them of any rational defense-- it is incredibly difficult to
> defend irresponsibility. You've probably seen it on lots of net
> arguments-- a favorite tactic is to insinuate that your opponent is
> "irresponsible" or "immature".
Yes, it is difficult to defend irresponsibility. We've seen a lot of
cases where someone did actions with lack of appropriate
responsibility, got challenged and responded with legal action which
had nothing to do with the original fault on *his* side. I have been
involved in such cases too - cases where I was expected to stand up
for a person while I'd rather say to him, "how on earth could you
complete fool do that?" People tend then to resort to lawsuits to
reduce the implications of their irresponsible behaviour.
The problem is that it is not possible to draw a clear line. Probably
every decision about whether someone behaves responsibly has to be
labeled "IMHO". But such distinction *is* necessary, unless we really
want to run into cases like "there have been no warning labels not to
put a live cat in the microwave" - something of covering one's own
foolishness with legalese.
Sometimes it is the case that actionhas to be taken against
irresponsible people despite the fact that the definition of
responsibility isn't engraved in stone. Rather we should apply what
seems to get more and more out of fashion: common sense.
Olaf
--
olaf titz o olaf@bigred.ka.sub.org praetorius@irc
comp.sc.student _>\ _ s_titz@ira.uka.de LINUX - the choice
karlsruhe germany (_)<(_) uknf@dkauni2.bitnet of a GNU generation
what good is a photograph of you? everytime i look at it it makes me feel blue
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 07:27:36 1993
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Date: 6 Aug 1993 11:25:04 +0100
Message-ID: <23tbi0$9t9@news.mantis.co.uk>
spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge) writes:
>I don't think Mr. Grady really means to do this (so please don't flame),
>but his post has raised what I consider an interesting issue. When can
>a net.community.member (assuming such a beast exists) ethically get onto
>a site postmaster to complain about the behaviour of another user?
As far as I'm concerned, users on the net are welcome to complain
whenever they wish. I see no ethical reason why they shouldn't whine
as much as they like. Of course, I reserve the right to ignore them.
A more interesting question is what should be done if the person you
are complaining to turns out to be the person you are complaining
about.
mathew
--
postmaster@mantis.co.uk
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 11:50:03 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 15:26:52 GMT
Michael Parks Swaim (swaim@owlnet.rice.edu) wrote:
: without touching any of the other files. Wouldn't you consider that even
: SLIGHTLY suspicious?
I guess that I am of a more liberal turn of mind -- that is what I
call curiosity. And original behavior, including curiosity, is called
creativity in my book.
Sure, if the user could have done real harm to my site then I would have
to limit the explorations. But otherwise I want to *encourage* exploration
in the world.
Just a difference in philosophy. I like to set up a safe area for my kids
and let them do what they want. Others would like to throw admonishments
at the kid beforehand and not bother with making sure the room
is safe to start with and then to punish the kid if something looks like it
might get hurt.
The latter philosophy seems to be that of SRI.
Illiberal and anti-intellectual freedom (as perhaps is MSU for their part).
It seem inconsistent with SRI's blue-sky research charter to punish
creativity, original, or challenging actions that do no harm.
--
grady@netcom.com voice/fax (707) 826-7715
compiler of Moby lexical databases, including
Moby Thesaurus, second edition: 30,000 roots, 2.5 million synonyms
finger grady@netcom.com for more information.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 12:01:46 1993
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [CHE] Highlights from Chronicle of Higher Ed.
Date: 6 Aug 1993 12:01:12 -0400
Message-ID: <23tv88$gmd@eff.org>
[Excerpts from the Chronicle abstract from their gopher
"gopher chronicle.merit.com 70"
I found it with the CAF whatsnews server, "gopher gopher.eff.org 5070"
- Carl]
==================================
A guide to the August 4, 1993, issue of
THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(Volume 39, Issue 48)
TOUGH QUESTIONS IN SEXUAL-HARASSMENT CASES
The suspension of a faculty member at the U. of Houston
dramatizes the complicated legal issues colleges face when
accusations of sexual misconduct are made: Page A13
[...]
o A professor who resigned from the U. of Puget Sound amid
accusations that he sexually harassed female students has
sued the institution: A4
[...]
o The House of Representatives approved legislation
aimed at developing an information superhighway: A16
[...]
o Another bill related to the information superhighway, to
have the Commerce Department support efforts to connect
non-profit institutions to the Internet, is just beginning
to wend its way through the legislative process: A16
[...]
PREDICTION ON SPEECH CODES
President Clinton's nominee to the Supreme Court
reflects on her experiences with campus "hate speech"
and predicts that the issue will come to the Court: Page A23
[...]
POLICE ARE CRITICIZED AT PENN
Officers should not have chased students who were trashing
thousands of copies of the campus newspaper, says a report
commissioned by the university: Page A27
[...]
o Britain's Education Secretary announced that student
organizations receiving government funds will be barred
from taking part in political activities: A31
[...]
[Letters]
THE CONSEQUENCES OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE
Recent scholarship on how technology, culture, and politics
are intertwined has had little effect on national-policy
deliberations, says Langdon Winner, professor of political
science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: Page B1
[...]
o Defining sexual harassment: B4
o Occidental fraternity and free speech: B4
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 22:38:38 1993
From: mskucher@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF])
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in computer network"
Message-ID:
Date: 6 Aug 93 15:43:16 GMT
s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:
>mskucher@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF]) writes:
>> It is to be expected. We've established already that with every
>> freedom there are those who abuse it. In part, that's what this
>> debate is all about.
>
>Right, but now explain this to people who are complaining about what
>they consider to be harrassment. It is already difficult to defend
>free speech if one accepts that this implies that abuse can't be
>stopped (I don't question this). But there are much better ways, IMHO,
>than to tell them: "Freedom is first of all the freedom to harrass
>*you*." NOT.
I don't think anyone involved in this debate has taken that position.
IMHO, it is very easy to defend free speech despite the fact that there
exists some set of people who will abuse it (ie. harrass others). You
have to take care of one thing at a time. Censoring the population,
then snuffing out harrassment and then restoring free speech doesn't
make sense to me.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 22:38:40 1993
From: mskucher@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF])
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID:
Date: 6 Aug 93 15:53:39 GMT
spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA writes:
>As I have said before, I don't see a one-sided agenda here. Nobody has
>presented a shred of a scintilla of evidence that Ms. Prevost-Derbecker
>has any concerns beyond the ones she has stated: the use of a very busy,
>very expensive system to distribute material that she (and many other
>people) believe promotes the rape of women and children.
Ms. Prevost-Derbecker (sp?) presented to the Human Rights Co-Ordinator
a proposal. I have a copy. It is crude in nature, likely due to a lack
of familiarity with Usenet and Internet (it makes reference to
ALT SEX - BIANAUS,PICTURES EROTICA). However, it does make the intent
of the Women's Centre very precise.
It is not clear to me from any of the text of that proposal that
she has any concerns about the "very busy, very expensive system".
She is more concerned with the nature of the material in question.
>Well, I don't accept the "them" and "us". I think we can educate people
>about the standards the world community requires of the net without
>cutting off userids, deleting categories of newsgroups, or vetting
>newsfeeds. And I think if we don't accept the need for responsibility,
>we won't have very much freedom left.
This is part of the proposal. But, IMHO, this has very little to do
with networking etiquette and standards. It has to do with what can
be legitimately labelled "harrassment".
>I don't consider irresponsible behaviour
>an "inevitable" aspect of freedom.
It is, however, an inevitable aspect of human behaviour.
>In fact, irresponsible behaviour renders
>people less free. Protecting freedom in spite of irresponsible behaviour
>has a futility that resembles bailing a boat in spite of the gaping hole
>in the bottom.
This suggests to me that you think irresponsibility prevails in our
society. I think that's false.
(Disclaimer: These aren't UW's opinions. They are mine.)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 22:44:39 1993
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [CHE] Highlights from Chronicle of Higher Ed.
Message-ID:
Date: 6 Aug 93 16:32:07 GMT
kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) wrote:
>[Excerpts from the Chronicle abstract from their gopher
> "gopher chronicle.merit.com 70"
>
> A guide to the August 4, 1993, issue of
> THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION
> (Volume 39, Issue 48)
>
> POLICE ARE CRITICIZED AT PENN
> Officers should not have chased students who were trashing
> thousands of copies of the campus newspaper, says a report
> commissioned by the university: Page A27
Ya just gotta love it......"no, you should never try to stop people
from trashing/removing materials which were placed there, for the
general public, with the University's permission."......bleah.
What's next? "No, you shouldn't stop graffiti artists"? It's going
to be *quite* interesting to watch Hackney (sp?), the ex-president of
Penn, in his new capacity as director of the NEH......
--Wes
--
Wes Morgan - University of Kentucky - morgan@engr.uky.edu
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer E/S admins - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
GCS/E/MU d--- -p+ c++ l+ m* s++/++ !g w+ t+ r
gharshana-neti -- mental floss?
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 22:44:43 1993
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID:
Date: 6 Aug 93 16:35:28 GMT
mskucher@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF]) wrote:
>Ms. Prevost-Derbecker (sp?) presented to the Human Rights Co-Ordinator
>a proposal. I have a copy. It is crude in nature, likely due to a lack
>of familiarity with Usenet and Internet (it makes reference to
>ALT SEX - BIANAUS,PICTURES EROTICA). However, it does make the intent
>of the Women's Centre very precise.
Would you (or someone else at UW) please post this proposal?
--Wes
--
Wes Morgan - University of Kentucky - morgan@engr.uky.edu
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer E/S admins - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
GCS/E/MU d--- -p+ c++ l+ m* s++/++ !g w+ t+ r
gharshana-neti -- mental floss?
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 23:22:47 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge)
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 21:40:15 GMT
In article I47@math.uwaterloo.ca, mskucher@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF]) writes:
> It is not clear to me from any of the text of that proposal that
> she has any concerns about the "very busy, very expensive system".
> She is more concerned with the nature of the material in question.
I got the "busy/expensive" quote from the Kitchener/Waterloo Record.
I accept your judgement that she mainly wants to deal with material she
finds harmful. I don't yet accept the assumption that she wants to establish
any kind of "power" over the internet, or that she represents a small
minority to autorities have no business listening to (people have asserted
both propositions during this debate).
> This is part of the proposal. But, IMHO, this has very little to do
> with networking etiquette and standards. It has to do with what can
> be legitimately labelled "harrassment".
I don't particularly understand that dichotomy. Surely if we agree that
we can legitimately label something "harrassment" it should fall outside
network etiquette or standards of behaviour.
Right now, we agree that such things as mail bombing constitute harrassment,
and we accept the legitimacy of preventing users from engaging in them. If
we come to see posting of certain types of pornography as harrassment, we
should surely accept it as a violation of network etiquette and standards
as well.
And just to make my position clear: I don't yet have much of a hard and
fast position on this, except that I see enough merit in they concerns some
people have expressed to debate them. If someone has a rational defence for
posting child pornography, I will try (although I have seen first hand the
devastation child rape can wreak) to come up with a rational answer. I only
disagree with people who claim that we must accept all behaviour, ignoring
any question of responsibility and ethics, or we will lose freedom. I don't
think we will keep any freedom worth having by ignoring ethics.
> >I don't consider irresponsible behaviour
> >an "inevitable" aspect of freedom.
>
> It is, however, an inevitable aspect of human behaviour.
Of course. I wrote that in response to someone who I understood to suggest
that the defence of freedom inevitably involved a defence of irresponsible
behaviour as well. I don't agree.
> >In fact, irresponsible behaviour renders
> >people less free. Protecting freedom in spite of irresponsible behaviour
> >has a futility that resembles bailing a boat in spite of the gaping hole
> >in the bottom.
>
> This suggests to me that you think irresponsibility prevails in our
> society. I think that's false.
I don't think irresponsibility prevails in our society. I do think that
where people indulge in irresponsible behaviour, they (almost by definition)
limit the freedom of others; and that in turn fuels the demand to limit or
remove the freedom that allowed the irresponsible behaviour in the first place.
John G. Spragge --- spraggej@jeff-lab.queensu.ca --- standard disclaimers apply
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 23:23:23 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
Subject: [alt.binaries.pictures.erotica] Re: BBS Porn Arrest - OKC
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 21:21:47 GMT
[A repost - Carl]
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 23:23:23 1993
From: u953002@unx.ucc.okstate.edu (u953002)
Subject: Re: BBS Porn Arrest - OKC
Message-ID: <1993Aug6.063031.22976@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 06:30:31 GMT
In article <22muah$iep@largo.key.amdahl.com> jwill@key.amdahl.com writes:
>Here's an interesting idea . . . does this mean they can't receive the internet
>because of some of the content?
>
>It's hard to believe how backward some areas of the country are.
>
> John.
We still get internet...but the news groups of interest have been
censored. I do so love living in the bible belt. Hell, at least we can
still telnet to other sites and ftp the uudecoded pics. BTW, not all of
us in this part of the country are backward...it's just the idiots in
charge.
:
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 23:25:30 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: jeg7e@livia.acs.Virginia.EDU (Jon Gefaell)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 13:05:18 GMT
In article swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
>In article grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward) writes:
>>
>>SRI is completely in the wrong here. They are damaging their credibility
>>by punishing a person of far lesser power who only crime was curiosity
>>abetted by a slack ftp administration. Their reputation has been
>>severely diminished in my eyes because of this entire episode.
>
> The student in question ftp'd the site, did a get of the README file
>(and if I remember correctly, even said that he did "get -" to print it
>to his screen), got the passwd file in question, and then logged out,
>without touching any of the other files. Wouldn't you consider that even
>SLIGHTLY suspicious?
No, I wouldn't be foolish enough to keep a passwd file with crypted
passwords in ~ftp/etc/passwd. I'm a firm believer that what you make
public is... PUBLIC. not PUBlished, but then again... That's PUBLIC
by definition, at least public to those published to in this case the
eneral FTP using Internet Public
I suppose what bothers me about this thread is the typical USENET/Inet
philosophy of holding your ground as opposed to synthesizing ideas.
SRI(as represented by Maron) is patently wrong here, IMHO.
Please note my disclaimer. I'm posting my opinion 'cause I can't
sit on my hands any longer, but my opinions have proven to often
be quite diferent than those of my employer.
--
______
\ \ / Jon Gefaell, Computer Systems Engineer | Amateur Radio - KD4CQY
\/\/ Information Technology and Communications | -Will chmod for food-
\/ The University of Virginia, Charlottesville | Hacker@Virginia.EDU
Any opinions expressed herein are not intended to be construed as those of UVA
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 23:32:15 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge)
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 22:03:45 GMT
In article 23s2i4INNaao@mojo.eng.umd.edu, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> In article spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA writes:
> >
> >As for a "tiny fraction", well, right now the people who spring to the
> >"defence" of "the net" likewise represent a tiny fraction of the overall
> >population, heavily subsidized, without a really good reason the public
> >(which has to buy stamps and pay long distance rates) should help pay
> >for us to distribute questionable material via the net.
>
> Now you've accepted their authority to censor.
Ok. I have, ultimately, accepted the right of people to decide where their
money goes. I accept that the people who pay for this net have some rights
other than to just go on forking over their money and shutting up. If they
consider our activities imperil them and their children, then I think they
do have the right to a voice on that little matter.
If that constitutes accepting censorship, fine. I prefer to think of it as
a realization that rights don't just apply to the users of the net.
> If we accept the standards "the world community requires", then we ARE
> censored. And if it is not done without cutting off userids, it
> simply won't happen-- you can't enFORCE such things without FORCE
Right now, we cheerfully enforce the standards the NET requires. Don't
believe me? On one of the "loose and goosey" forums recently, a set of
threats of mail bombs went around, and the userid of the person at fault
disappeared so fast my head spun.
And who has a stronger moral claim: someone who says: if you do that, I
my paper may not get to the conference in time, or someone who says: if
you do that, my child may get raped? I don't consider that a tough call
in any way, shape or form.
Before you accuse me of stirring up emotions, forget it. I have strong
emotions on this subject. I have a particularly strong reaction to the
idea that yes, we acknowledge child pornography as bad, and yes, we know
that a tiny minority does post it to the net, but we won't say anything
about it, because that might affect our freedom. I don't want the kind of
"freedom" for which I have to put up with material that encourages the rape
of children. I'd die for freedom, but I won't debase myself for it; if the
choice lies between depravity and slavery, then bring on the shackles,
because I don't consider freedom possible in those circumstances anyway.
And as for your contention that we can't make any change without force:
I reject it. I think we can change people's behaviour without revoking
userids. I think a moral example can make a difference; otherwise, what
value do these forums have? If material which encourages violence meets
with a barrage of disaproval, that may well discourage the people who
post it from doing so again. In any case, it makes more sense to use the
freedom of the net to articulate that standards we believe in than to
close ranks around the few pedophiles in our midst, in the belief that
our freedom depend on their license.
John G. Spragge --- spraggej@jeff-lab.queensu.ca --- standard disclaimers apply
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 23:43:12 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: rdippold@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 21:42:47 GMT
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
> So? Their site's not for general use, and they've had enough attempts on
>the site for the guy's actions to raise a warning flag. From their end, they
Any yet they still offered anonymous ftp?
--
Husband: a man who buys his football tickets four months in advance and waits
until December 24 to do his Christmas shopping.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 6 23:56:26 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 18:49:03 GMT
In article grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward) writes:
>Michael Parks Swaim (swaim@owlnet.rice.edu) wrote:
>: without touching any of the other files. Wouldn't you consider that even
>: SLIGHTLY suspicious?
>
>I guess that I am of a more liberal turn of mind -- that is what I
>call curiosity. And original behavior, including curiosity, is called
>creativity in my book.
Apparantly this behavior had occurred enough at the site for them to consider
it suspicious activity.
>Sure, if the user could have done real harm to my site then I would have
>to limit the explorations. But otherwise I want to *encourage* exploration
>in the world.
So? Their site's not for general use, and they've had enough attempts on
the site for the guy's actions to raise a warning flag. From their end, they
can't tell if the guy's clueless, or if he's planning a cracking run on their
site. So they send a message to the admin (actually the contact person, if
I remember correctly) of the student's site explaining their concerns.
It's up to the people at the student's site to determine whether or not
those concerns are justified or not, not the people at SRI.
--
Mike Swaim |"Can she suck a golfball through a garden hose?"
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu |"No, but she can stick her tongue up my nose."
Disclamer: I lie.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 00:19:43 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 22:20:51 GMT
In article jeg7e@livia.acs.Virginia.EDU (Jon Gefaell) writes:
>In article swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
>>In article grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward) writes:
>>>
>>>SRI is completely in the wrong here. They are damaging their credibility
>>>by punishing a person of far lesser power who only crime was curiosity
>>>abetted by a slack ftp administration. Their reputation has been
>>>severely diminished in my eyes because of this entire episode.
>>
>> The student in question ftp'd the site, did a get of the README file
>>(and if I remember correctly, even said that he did "get -" to print it
>>to his screen), got the passwd file in question, and then logged out,
>>without touching any of the other files. Wouldn't you consider that even
>>SLIGHTLY suspicious?
>
>No, I wouldn't be foolish enough to keep a passwd file with crypted
>passwords in ~ftp/etc/passwd.
Niether did they. In the origonal message to the guy's school they mentioned
that. That's besides the point of considering the behavior suspicious.
>SRI(as represented by Maron) is patently wrong here, IMHO.
For considering the behavior suspicious, mentioning it to someone who
could investigate it, or the overreaction of the student's school?
--
Mike Swaim |"Can she suck a golfball through a garden hose?"
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu |"No, but she can stick her tongue up my nose."
Disclamer: I lie.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 00:38:53 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: ubacr45@ucl.ac.uk (Mr G Toal)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Assertiveness Training for Cyberspace
Message-ID: <1993Aug6.200401.90042@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 20:04:01 GMT
In article <1993Aug04.183219.8664@utoday.com> wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) writes:
>>Me too - I'm of the school of thought that idiot newbie postings like
>>'I've just heard about this kid who's dying of cancer and wants to
>>get in the Guinness book of records for collecting the largest number
>>of Hawaiian bottle tops (with staples)...' should be flamed down *hard*
>>- not to stop the newbie (who'll get the message quickly in private
>>mail :-) ) but to make all those other newbies sit up and pay attention
>>and maybe think twice before the repost some usenet idiocy themselves...
>
>I have to disagree.
>
>What that does is see to it that newbies looking for
>quiet discourse wander off when they get flamed, and that only leaves
>the people who LIKE hostility. This makes the whole net environment
>hostile.
I shouldn't tell you this because I don't want to spoil my reputation
as a net.grouch, but what I sometimes do in the face of a Shergold posting
or equivalent is flame violently as described, but send private mail
explaining that I'm not *really* mad at them and that the flame was just
to make other newbies notice that whatever the offending posting was
about is a real problem. (I'm not *always* such as softie, but sometimes
it's obvious that the offending poster doesn't deserve to be *really* flamed,
like when it's one one of the old lady schoolteachers from tenet.edu
who pop up on the net for the first time. It's just unfortunate that
their first post is invariably about Craig or Mickey-Mouse lsd transfers...)
G
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 00:39:04 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: ubacr45@ucl.ac.uk (Mr G Toal)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Message-ID: <1993Aug6.202615.90087@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 20:26:15 GMT
In article <23tbi0$9t9@news.mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>A more interesting question is what should be done if the person you
>are complaining to turns out to be the person you are complaining
>about.
>postmaster@mantis.co.uk
We obviously you have to complain to the *right people*; in your
case 'dig mantis.co.uk any any' suggests it should be postmaster@pipex.net,
if you'd done something so heinous that any right-thinking provider would
pull your feed for :-)
G
PS Anyone wants to kick me off the net I suggest you start with
postmaster@demon.co.uk and see what happens. Let me know, I'd be
interested too :-)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 00:40:25 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mskucher@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF])
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 01:06:36 GMT
spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA writes:
>I don't yet accept the assumption that she wants to establish
>any kind of "power" over the internet, or that she represents a small
>minority to autorities have no business listening to (people have asserted
>both propositions during this debate).
Ms. Prevost-Doerbecker does, however, claim to represent a "consensus"
of the students - a dubious assertion at best.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 00:41:00 1993
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Date: 7 Aug 1993 01:08:48 GMT
Message-ID: <23uvb0INNi6u@mojo.eng.umd.edu>
In article spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA writes:
}In article 23s2i4INNaao@mojo.eng.umd.edu, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
}> In article spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA writes:
}> Now you've accepted their authority to censor.
}
}Ok. I have, ultimately, accepted the right of people to decide where their
}money goes. I accept that the people who pay for this net have some rights
}other than to just go on forking over their money and shutting up. If they
Let them shut it down then.
}If that constitutes accepting censorship, fine. I prefer to think of it as
}a realization that rights don't just apply to the users of the net.
More like a realization that rights just don't apply to the users of
the net.
}> If we accept the standards "the world community requires", then we ARE
}> censored. And if it is not done without cutting off userids, it
}> simply won't happen-- you can't enFORCE such things without FORCE
}
}Right now, we cheerfully enforce the standards the NET requires. Don't
}believe me? On one of the "loose and goosey" forums recently, a set of
}threats of mail bombs went around, and the userid of the person at fault
}disappeared so fast my head spun.
While bad, such standards imposed by individual administrators
within the net are much, much, better than those imposed netwide by an
authority outside the net. For the former, all the "offender" has to do
is find an admin who won't do anything to him. For the latter, the
offender is stuck. Furthermore, since the rule is imposed from
outside, there's no one he can appeal to to change it.
}Before you accuse me of stirring up emotions, forget it. I have strong
}emotions on this subject. I have a particularly strong reaction to the
}idea that yes, we acknowledge child pornography as bad, and yes, we know
}that a tiny minority does post it to the net, but we won't say anything
}about it, because that might affect our freedom.
SAY as much as you want. But denouncing it is a far cry from
censoring it.
}I don't want the kind of "freedom" for which I have to put up with
}material that encourages the rape of children.
You want to censor material which in your (or SOMEONE's) opinion,
encourages rape of children?
}I'd die for freedom, but I won't debase myself for it;
Failure to censor somehow debases you? I'm not proposing you be
forced to post the stuff!
}And as for your contention that we can't make any change without force:
}I reject it. I think we can change people's behaviour without revoking
}userids. I think a moral example can make a difference; otherwise, what
}value do these forums have? If material which encourages violence meets
}with a barrage of disaproval, that may well discourage the people who
}post it from doing so again.
It might. But in many cases, it will not. In some cases, it will
encourage them.
}In any case, it makes more sense to use the
}freedom of the net to articulate that standards we believe in than to
}close ranks around the few pedophiles in our midst, in the belief that
}our freedom depend on their license.
It does. Pedophiles are an easy target, and hence a good start. Once
they've managed to establish censorship, they'll next go after other
"pornography"-- all of alt.sex.*, for instance. Then they'll work on
obscenity/profanity in all newsgroups. Then, perhaps the political
groups, perhaps rec.guns, perhaps soc.singles. Sooner or later,
you'll have Prodigy.
We can close ranks now, and forgo the slippery slope for a later fast
track down the abyss, or we can struggle for quite a long time, giving
up ground at every turn.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 00:41:05 1993
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Date: 7 Aug 1993 00:36:43 GMT
Message-ID: <23uterINNi5b@mojo.eng.umd.edu>
In article swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
} The student in question ftp'd the site, did a get of the README file
}(and if I remember correctly, even said that he did "get -" to print it
}to his screen), got the passwd file in question, and then logged out,
}without touching any of the other files. Wouldn't you consider that even
}SLIGHTLY suspicious?
Not if the README file forbade getting the passwd file.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 00:41:10 1993
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Responsible behaviour
Date: 7 Aug 1993 00:45:37 GMT
Message-ID: <23utvhINNi5t@mojo.eng.umd.edu>
In article <23tcd9$r4s@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:
}Sometimes it is the case that actionhas to be taken against
}irresponsible people despite the fact that the definition of
}responsibility isn't engraved in stone. Rather we should apply what
}seems to get more and more out of fashion: common sense.
Common sense is anything but common. Anyone who has the power to take
action against irresponsible posts on the net can take action against ME by
defining my posts as "irresponsible". Therefore, I don't want anyone
to have that sort of power. Of course, if as a result of my so-called
"irresponsibility", I get a lot of people attacking me and that sort
of thing, and _I_ try to do something about it, I'll find that there's
no one to take action against THEM, either. Seems OK to me.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 00:41:13 1993
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Date: 7 Aug 1993 00:47:48 GMT
Message-ID: <23uu3kINNi5v@mojo.eng.umd.edu>
In article <23tbi0$9t9@news.mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
}spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge) writes:
}>I don't think Mr. Grady really means to do this (so please don't flame),
}>but his post has raised what I consider an interesting issue. When can
}>a net.community.member (assuming such a beast exists) ethically get onto
}>a site postmaster to complain about the behaviour of another user?
}
}As far as I'm concerned, users on the net are welcome to complain
}whenever they wish. I see no ethical reason why they shouldn't whine
}as much as they like. Of course, I reserve the right to ignore them.
}
}A more interesting question is what should be done if the person you
}are complaining to turns out to be the person you are complaining
}about.
The person you are complaining to should respond "Beep-beep" and
speed off victoriously into sunset.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 02:02:54 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re:
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 05:47:12 GMT
I didn't really intend to have this discussion continue into this thread, but
since you insist...
In article Duw@rice.edu, swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
> Apparantly this behavior had occurred enough at the site for them to consider
> it suspicious activity.
If someone sets up an anonymous FTP site, that strikes me as the equivalent
of hanging out a shingle that says "public office". It doesn't matter whether
or not they intended to have it used that way; if you put that type of system
out on the net, you invite people in. In my opinion, you have no business
complaining unless and until someone actively attempts to subvert a restriction.
Here at Queen's, our secure systems have a banner that basically says that if
you go through any doors you ought not to, that constitutes hacking, and the
Criminal Code of Canada has this to say... a nasty welcome, but one that makes
the subject clear. If, on the other hand, you set up a userid of anonymous,
by convention you welcome people to your site.
Look, we probably should have a system available for small group FTP (in fact,
we do have plenty of file sharing facilities available and under development)
that doesn't say public. But a no-password userid of anonymous DOES say public.
> So? Their site's not for general use, and they've had enough attempts on
> the site for the guy's actions to raise a warning flag. From their end, they
> can't tell if the guy's clueless, or if he's planning a cracking run on their
> site. So they send a message to the admin (actually the contact person, if
> I remember correctly) of the student's site explaining their concerns.
1) As I remember the explanation, most of these "attempts" came from archie
sites trying to download their directories.
2) A complaint of this sort acts as a sort of unguided missile, unless you know
the people at their site. They may pass the problem to a postmaster who
understands the technical issues; on the other hand, you may get a
technological illiterate who knows that cutting off the student's userid
will cause the least work and/or bureaucratic exposure.
> It's up to the people at the student's site to determine whether or not
> those concerns are justified or not, not the people at SRI.
Do you have confidence that everyone at your site on whose desk a complaint
might land has the required wisdom and judgement and technical knowledge?
Now, can you say that about every site?
It seems to me that you can't take an action knowing that you may trigger an
overreaction and just wash your hands of the responsibility by leaving it all
with the site you complain to.
John G. Spragge --- spraggej@jeff-lab.queensu.ca --- standard disclaimers apply
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 03:07:55 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 05:06:19 GMT
In article rdippold@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
>swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
>> So? Their site's not for general use, and they've had enough attempts on
>>the site for the guy's actions to raise a warning flag. From their end, they
>
>Any yet they still offered anonymous ftp?
It was for SRI employees and their associates. The student presumably knew
this after reading the README file that explained it, before getting the
passwd file.
--
Mike Swaim |"Can she suck a golfball through a garden hose?"
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu |"No, but she can stick her tongue up my nose."
Disclamer: I lie.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 03:29:40 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge)
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 07:23:35 GMT
In article 23uvb0INNi6u@mojo.eng.umd.edu, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> In article spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA writes:
> }Ok. I have, ultimately, accepted the right of people to decide where their
> }money goes. I accept that the people who pay for this net have some rights
> }other than to just go on forking over their money and shutting up. If they
>
> Let them shut it down then.
Ok, by "they" here I mean the wide world that pays taxes, has kids, and has
good reason to worry about the effects of child pornography and child rape
on their children and their communities. And since they "they" includes "me"
in all respects except having kids, I should say "us".
Anyway, the people who pay for the net can ensure that it does not get used
for activities which harm innocent people. And it does not require shutting
the whole thing down. They can, for example, choose to shut down all but the
moderated newsgroups. The technical possibility exists; at a cost I don't
personally want to see.
But they will do it if we take the basic position that we will do whatever
we want with no respect for them and their communities and their children.
> }If that constitutes accepting censorship, fine. I prefer to think of it as
> }a realization that rights don't just apply to the users of the net.
>
> More like a realization that rights just don't apply to the users of
> the net.
The right to do something you know to be wrong, something you know will harm
other people does not "not apply" to users of the net; it doesn't apply to
anyone.
> While bad, such standards imposed by individual administrators
> within the net are much, much, better than those imposed netwide by an
> authority outside the net. For the former, all the "offender" has to do
> is find an admin who won't do anything to him. For the latter, the
> offender is stuck. Furthermore, since the rule is imposed from
> outside, there's no one he can appeal to to change it.
Outside and inside don't exist. Don't you notice that the net does not
finance itself; the "outside" you speak of foots the bills? The outside
feels the effects of what we do. The "outside" has rights we can't legitimately
violate.
> SAY as much as you want. But denouncing it is a far cry from
> censoring it.
I already have. Others have written to say that the complaints against child
pornography come from "radical feminists" the authorities should not listen
to. You claim that pressuring people not to post child pornography amounts to
"self censorship".
> You want to censor material which in your (or SOMEONE's) opinion,
> encourages rape of children?
If someone posts a shot of kids having sex (I don't say they have) then
the child rape has already happened. Other stuff, while it may not involve
child rape, encourages it. Child rape kills children.
And no, I don't want to censor it. I want to stop it. I would rather do it
through a consensus on the net. Put it this way: if no censorship means the
net carries material that encourages child rape, then I would rather have
censorship than child rape. If you offer me a choice between cholera and
the plague...
> Failure to censor somehow debases you? I'm not proposing you be
> forced to post the stuff!
Ok, first: you want a lot more from me than that. You want me to identify
the license to hurt others with the freedom I want. I won't do it. If
freedom includes the freedom to rape children, then I don't want that kind
of "freedom".
> It might. But in many cases, it will not. In some cases, it will
> encourage them.
Then how does Amnesty International work?
> It does. Pedophiles are an easy target, and hence a good start. Once
> they've managed to establish censorship, they'll next go after other
> "pornography"-- all of alt.sex.*, for instance. Then they'll work on
> obscenity/profanity in all newsgroups. Then, perhaps the political
> groups, perhaps rec.guns, perhaps soc.singles. Sooner or later,
> you'll have Prodigy.
If the public gets the idea you have advanced here, that freedom for the
net has to equal freedom for child porn, then we'll have "prodigy" so
fast we'll all get flash burn.
If we defend the pedophiles, particularly on the "slippery slope" grounds
you suggest, then the public will get (correctly, in my view) the idea that
we constitute a danger and that that we need to have censorship imposed.
After that, we'll lose every battle on that argument alone.
If we can mount a principled defence for child porn (I can't imagine one)
we should. But I've seen no evidence we can, and you haven't tried. You have
just given me a line about how we have to defend the pedophiles because
some immaginary "they" want to take "our" freedom away.
I keep telling you two things: one, "they" don't really exist. Certainly,
"they" don't have a plan laid out that says pedophiles first, then a.b.p.e,
then alt.sex, and then (when we have people used to it) prodigy. People
who have made complaints have stated their principles pretty openly, so far.
We should state ours, which brings me to the second point: if "they" force
you to abandon your moral principles for "tactical" reasons, then you have
no freedom worthy of the name left.
> We can close ranks now, and forgo the slippery slope for a later fast
> track down the abyss, or we can struggle for quite a long time, giving
> up ground at every turn.
Nope.
We can defend what we can honestly support. If that includes child porn for you,
then say so, and say why. If it doesn't; if you have to agree that it does cause
harm, then don't support it because of a "slippery slope".
If everyone who found a copy of a posting child pornography wrote the poster
to say so, both publically and through e-mail, then the psychological pressure
would amount to a tremendous incentive not to do it again. I'd rather close
ranks that way, and deal with material we know causes harm (again, if you don't
know that, say so) ourselves.
John G. Spragge --- spraggej@jeff-lab.queensu.ca --- standard disclaimers apply
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 05:43:12 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: dmcanzi@ecis.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 09:31:18 GMT
In article ,
John G. Spragge wrote:
)In article G08@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca, dmcanzi@ecis.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
)> Saying that we should behave responsibly is useless. Most of the net
)> doesn't even read the groups you post to, and most of the rest will
)> ignore you. The people who post child porn are the least likely people
)> in the world to be swayed by any moral argument you might post.
)
)Not necessarily. People do observe limits.
)
)Look, repressive governments look like poor candidates for moral pressure,
)too. But Amnesty's tactics (write polite letters appealing for the release
)of prisoner X... do work, because even heads of governments can't ignore
)pressure from thousands of people.
*Some* people observe limits. *Some* repressive governments
*sometimes* respond to moral pressure. Generalizing this to *all* is
unjustified. You can't hope to stop everybody who would post child
porn to the net by moral pressure alone. There are no moral
prohibitions sterner or more universally held than the prohibitions
against lying, theft, and murder. Nevertheless, there *are* liars,
thieves, and murderers.
You've been arguing that people who post irresponsibly are providing
"social engineers" with the ammunition they need to justify censoring
the net, and calling for more responsible behaviour to prevent this.
Calling for responsible behaviour won't deprive "social engineers" of
examples of irresponsible behaviour they can use to justify censorship,
so is useless for its apparent intended purpose.
)Look, when someone threatens to actually disrupt the net itself (by mail
)bombing, or setting up a demon to post uuencoded core dumps to a group),
)members of the group do defend it. We do enforce the basic minimum of
)behavoiur required to make the net usable.
)
)> Having a debate to draw The Line is useless. Once we have drawn The
)> Line, what magical force is supposed to stop the net from crossing it?
)
)The same "magic force" that restrains mail bombings.
Up to this point I thought you were talking about stopping child porn
on the net by moral persuasion alone, without enforcement, and I was
arguing that that was impossible. But now I see that you do intend to
enforce moral standards on the net.
)right now the people who spring to the
)"defence" of "the net" likewise represent a tiny fraction of the overall
)population, heavily subsidized, without a really good reason the public
)(which has to buy stamps and pay long distance rates) should help pay
)for us to distribute questionable material via the net.
It costs less for UW to carry alt.binaries.pictures.erotica than not to
carry it. (Hint: If we remove the newsgroup from our machines,
various people on campus will find other ways to get it.)
)> Usenet is a world-wide population of millions who can have their
)> thoughts -- and their favourite dirty pictures -- distributed
)> automatically to the world. In a network this big, without censorship,
)> it is inevitable that child porn, neo-nazi tracts, and whatever else
)> offends and frightens people will be posted. Where there is freedom,
)> there will be irresponsible behaviour, and would-be censors will always
)> have examples of it they can use to justify a crackdown.
)
)As I have said before, I don't see a one-sided agenda here. Nobody has
)presented a shred of a scintilla of evidence that Ms. Prevost-Derbecker
)has any concerns beyond the ones she has stated: the use of a very busy,
)very expensive system to distribute material that she (and many other
)people) believe promotes the rape of women and children.
Hmmm. It appears below some text of mine, as if it were a response,
but doesn't appear to have any relationship to what I said.
The main concern expressed by Prevost-Derbecker, according to the KW
Record, was that such *awful* stuff (child porn and bondage) was found
in sex-related newsgroups, and that it must be stopped by removing the
newsgroups it appeared in. Cost was only mentioned as an
afterthought. Cost is not, and has never been a concern to the people
who try to remove a.b.p.e. When we have argued in a local newsgroup
that it costs less to carry a.b.p.e than not to carry it, nobody who
supported its removal reversed their position. One person argued that
it's wrong to carry a.b.p.e, and is no less wrong if it saves us
money. The cost argument is an insincere argument, used only as a
sales pitch to sell censorship to people who might be skittish about
it.
Since cost is not the reason the sex and porn groups are under attack,
let's not mention it again, okay?
)I don't personally agree with her. I don't think censoring the net makes
)sense, either technologically or politically.
Well, now you've got me confused. Above, you appeared to be arguing
against my belief that moral persuasion alone is not enough to keep
child porn and stuff like that off the net, then you argued that some
sort of enforcement can be used, now you claim not to support
censorship. If you're playing Devil's advocate, can you at least be a
*consistent* Devil's advocate?
)> Irresponsible behaviour is inevitable when people are free. If you
)> value freedom enough, you accept this. If you protect freedom, you do
)> so in spite of this. You seem to want to stop the attacks of would-be
)> censors by stopping irresponsible behaviour on the net. But you can't
)> hope to stop irresponsible behaviour on the net without joining the
)> would-be censors yourself.
)
)No, I don't want to stop the attacks of the censors by stopping
)irresponsible behaviour. I'd campaign for a non-coercive solution to
)irresponsible behaviour on the net
This is either doublethink or autoproctology. A solution to
irresponsible behaviour that doesn't stop irresponsible behaviour, even
non-coercively, is not a solution. And if you don't want to stop the
attacks of censors by stopping irresponsible behaviour, then why did
you tell us in another posting that irresponsible behaviour is giving
would-be censors ammunition, and we have to be more responsible.
)I'd campaign for a non-coercive solution to
)irresponsible behaviour on the net even if Ms. Prevost-Derbecker had
)never raised her concerns.
Nevertheless, you didn't until she did. And the last time I remember
seeing your name on the net, it was in a similar censorship flap, and
I think you were preaching responsibility then too.
)I don't consider irresponsible behaviour
)an "inevitable" aspect of freedom. In fact, irresponsible behaviour renders
)people less free. Protecting freedom in spite of irresponsible behaviour
)has a futility that resembles bailing a boat in spite of the gaping hole
)in the bottom.
Look at the world around you. People have access to cars and alcohol.
Some people drive drunk. People have knives. Some people stab other
people. If enough people *can* do something, it is inevitable that
some of them *will*.
Baseball bats are used now and then to beat people. This is an
irresponsible use of baseball bats. If the government banned baseball
bats, there would be less irresponsible behaviour, but we would not be
freer.
--
David Canzi
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 07:37:38 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 10:45:32 GMT
In article <23uterINNi5b@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>In article swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
>
>} The student in question ftp'd the site, did a get of the README file
>}(and if I remember correctly, even said that he did "get -" to print it
>}to his screen), got the passwd file in question, and then logged out,
>}without touching any of the other files. Wouldn't you consider that even
>}SLIGHTLY suspicious?
>
>Not if the README file forbade getting the passwd file.
So if the README forbids doing something, he reads it and does it anyway
that's normal, acceptable behavior?
--
Mike Swaim |"Can she suck a golfball through a garden hose?"
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu |"No, but she can stick her tongue up my nose."
Disclamer: I lie.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 07:41:02 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re:
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 10:57:15 GMT
In article spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA writes:
[Pretty reasonable response deleted. It's also not what I want to focus on.]
>2) A complaint of this sort acts as a sort of unguided missile, unless you know
> the people at their site. They may pass the problem to a postmaster who
> understands the technical issues; on the other hand, you may get a
> technological illiterate who knows that cutting off the student's userid
> will cause the least work and/or bureaucratic exposure.
>
>> It's up to the people at the student's site to determine whether or not
>> those concerns are justified or not, not the people at SRI.
>
>Do you have confidence that everyone at your site on whose desk a complaint
>might land has the required wisdom and judgement and technical knowledge?
I'm pretty confident that it'll either land on someone's desk with the
knowledge or judgement to act properly or I'll be called in for an explanation
before they zap my account.
>Now, can you say that about every site?
Obviously not.
>It seems to me that you can't take an action knowing that you may trigger an
>overreaction and just wash your hands of the responsibility by leaving it all
>with the site you complain to.
So, how would you have handled the case, ASSUMING that you considered what
the guy did was suspicous?
--
Mike Swaim |"Can she suck a golfball through a garden hose?"
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu |"No, but she can stick her tongue up my nose."
Disclamer: I lie.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 10:32:43 1993
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,uiuc.general
Subject: Gopher on Computings and Women's studies
Date: 7 Aug 1993 10:32:09 -0400
Message-ID: <240ed9$n1l@eff.org>
If you have access to gopher and are interesting in women and
computing try:
gopher -p1/info/Teaching/WomensStudies/Computing info.umd.edu 901
For access to the whole UMD gropher, try:
gopher inform.umd.edu
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 11:16:55 1993
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 14:53:54 GMT
Two points:
1) I've lost track of who said it, but I thought someone said that if
illegal material is in Netnews then society should have authority to
try to halt it.
I basically agree, but with one critical proviso: the method used to
try to halt illegal material should be reasonable.
Without this proviso, we are saying that, say, Canada should have
authority to send death squads to, say, the U.S. to kill those it
suspects of posting bondage pictures. Alternatively, we are saying
that if it is possible that one illegal article might appear in a
newspaper/newsgroup, that newsgroup/newpaper should be banned forever.
I think a more reasonable response, and the one that I thought was
already part of the U. of Waterloo code, was that if an isolated
illegal article is found in a newsgroup, it is deleted. If the
material is also illegal in the poster's jurisdiction, it might be
reasonable to complain there, too.
2) There is a separate question about what material should be illegal.
In this case, the question doesn't have to be answered, because even
if it should be illegal, Prevost-Derbecker's suggested response is
unreasonable.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 11:53:37 1993
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,uiuc.general
Subject: Sexual Harassment and Women in Engineering
Date: 7 Aug 1993 11:53:03 -0400
Message-ID: <240j4v$nuv@eff.org>
This is definition of sexual harassment from the U. of Maryland.
(Found via "gopher -p1/info/Teaching/WomensStudies/GenderIssues/SexualHarassment/UMDManual" info.umd.edu 901").
I'll follow up with a note comparing it to the U. of Illinois definition.
DEFINITION: WHAT IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT?
Ideally, the University is a place where administrators,
faculty, staff, and students can work and learn in an environment
free from intimidating, offensive, and hostile behaviors.
Sexual harassment vitiates against such an environment.
Therefore, each member of the campus community has a significant
and on-going interest in eliminating sexual harassment.
University campuses have a responsibility to provide their
members with the opportunity to develop intellectually,
professionally, personally, and socially in a fair and humane
environment.
Sexual harassment is a complex and controversial problem
both in the classroom and the workplace. Sexual harassment maybe
overt or subtle. The acts constituting it may range from visual
signals or gestures to verbal abuse to physical contact.
The definition of sexual harassment may differ slightly
among educational institutions. The types of behavior
constituting sexual harassment may vary in degree of severity.Its
definition always has one key element -- the behavior is
uninvited, unwanted, and unwelcome.
Sexual harassment in higher education is not a new issue,
but has until recently been a hidden silent one. During the last
few years, campus personnel from administrators and faculty to
staff and students have recognized the problem in terms of its
lost productivity, time consumption, and legal implications. In
institutions of higher education, both the offender and the
offender's supervisor can be held liable for acts of sexual
harassment.
Listed on the following pages are several examples of
definitions for sexual harassment, including the University of
Maryland at College Park's (UMCP) definition.
1) Sexual harassment is offensive sexual behavior by persons in
authority towards those who can be benefitted or injured in an
official capacity. Therefore, it is primarily an issue of
abuse of power, not sex.
2) Sexual harassment is a breach of a trusting relationship that
should be a sex-neutral and relaxed situation.It is
unprofessional conduct and undermines the integrity of the
employment relationship.
3) Sexual harassment is coercive behavior, whether implied or
actual. It is unwanted attention and intimacy in a
nonreciprocal relationship.
4) Sexual harassment is an illegal form of sex discrimination. It
is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, the federal law prohibiting employment
discrimination. Sexual harassment of a student is a violation
of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX
prohibits discrimination based on sex in educational
institutions receiving federal financial assistance.
5) Sexual harassment is a violation of professional ethics.
6) The University of Maryland at College Park defines sexual
harassment as:
(1) "unwanted sexual advances;
(2) unwelcome requests for sexual favors; and
(3) other behavior of asexual nature where:
A. Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or
implicitly a term or condition of an individual's
employment or participation in a University-sponsored
educational program or activity; or
B. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an
individual is used as the basis for academic or
employment decisions affecting that individual; or
C. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably
interfering with an individual's academic or work
performance, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive educational or working environment.
***
"Sexual Harassment Between Persons Of The Opposite Sex Or Same
Sex Is Not Only Prohibited By The University Of Maryland At
College Park's Policy; But, Is a Violation Of Federal Law And May
Violate The Civil And Criminal Laws Of The State Of Maryland.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT: TYPES AND EXAMPLES
Sexual harassment ranges from visual signals, gestures, or
messages to verbal abuse and/or physical contact. Sexual
harassment may be either subtle or blatant demands for sexual
favors. All acts that constitute sexual harassment, however, can
be distinguished from voluntary sexual relationships by the
presence of coercion, threats, or continuous unwanted attention.
Sexual harassment includes, but is not limited to, menacing
behavior, sexual extortion, solicitation of sexual favors, and
unwanted sexual interactions with students, UMCP employees, or
persons with whom a close supervisory relationship exists.
Sexual harassment can involve any member of the UMCP community
including faculty, staff, teaching assistants, student
employees,and students. In addition, an incident of sexual
harassment may occur between a member of the UMCP Campus
community and a visitor, patron, client, or a contractor working
for UMCP. The "reasonable person" standard determines whether a
particular behavior constitutes sexual harassment prohibited by
the UMCP policy. The following pages of this section give
examples of verbal and non-verbal behaviors of a sexual nature
that may violate the Campus' policy on sexual harassment.
VERBAL BEHAVIOR
Listed below are examples of unacceptable verbal behaviors
that may be in violation of the Campus' policy on sexual
harassment. The behaviors listed below do not necessarily have to
be specifically directed at an individual to constitute sexual
harassment.
Verbal Behavior
* continuous idle chatter of a sexual nature and graphic sexual
descriptions;
* sexual slurs, sexual innuendos, and other comments about a
person's clothing, body, and/or sexual activities;
* offensive and persistent "risque" jokes or "jesting"and
"kidding" about sex or gender-specific traits;
* sexual teasing;
* suggestive or insulting sounds such as whistling, wolf-calls,
or kissing sounds;
* sexually provocative compliments about a person's clothes or
the way their clothes fit;
* comments of a sexual nature about weight, body shape, size, or
figure;
* comments or questions about the sensuality of a person, or
his/her spouse or significant other;
* pseudo-medical advice such as "you might be feeling bad because
you didn't get enough" or "A little Tender Loving Care (TLC) will
cure your ailments";
* telephone calls of a sexual nature, by an employee or student
matriculating at College Park, to an employee's or student's
residence. It could be sexual harassment whether or not the calls
pertain to business or academic matters.
* "staged whispers" or mimicking of a sexual nature about the way
a person walks, talks, sits, etc.,
* implied or overt threats if sexual attention is not given such
as a blatant threat of giving a poor efficiency report,work
evaluation, or grade if sexual favors are not forthcoming;
* distribution of written or graphic materials that are
derogatory are of a sexual nature;
* repeated unsolicited propositions for dates and/or sexual
intercourse.
PHYSICAL BEHAVIOR
Unwanted physical contact can range from offensive conduct to
criminal behavior. One employee or student may feel that the
physical contact is sexual harassment, while another may dismiss
it as an annoyance.
The examples of behaviors listed below involve actual
physical contact with the recipient. (Some of these behaviors are
explicitly sexual in nature; some may be accidental.) In any
event, this unwanted physical contact should cease immediately
when requested by the receiver or one seeking to mediate a
resolution. Any actual, or perceived, criminal conduct should be
reported to the Campus Police, 405-5726.
* touching that is inappropriate in the workplace or classroom
such as: patting, pinching, stroking, or brushing up against
the body;
* cornering or mauling;
* invading another's "personal space";
* attempted or actual kissing or fondling;
* physical assaults;
* coerced sexual intercourse;
* attempted rape or rape.
GESTURES AND OTHER NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOR
Gestures are movements of the body, head, arms, hands and
fingers, face and eyes that are expressive of an idea, opinion,or
emotion. Non-verbal behaviors are actions intended for an effect
or as a demonstration. Gestures and non-verbal behaviors
generally do not involve physical contact. Some gestures are
intended only to get the attention of the recipient, while others
are intended to provoke a reaction from the receiver.
Listed below are examples of unacceptable gestures and
non-verbal behaviors that may be in violation of Campus policy on
sexual harassment:
* sexual looks such as leering and ogling with suggestive
overtones;
* licking lips or teeth;
* holding or eating food provocatively;
* lewd gestures, such as hand or sign language to denote sexual
activity;
* persistent and unwelcome flirting.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT: A FORM OF SEX DISCRIMINATION
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination.
Presented below are some frequently asked questions and answers
about sex discrimination, especially as it relates to sexual
harassment.
1) What is Sex Discrimination?
Sex discrimination can be defined as an act of preferential
treatment and failure to provide equal opportunity to both
genders. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits
discrimination based on sex. Title IX states that:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefit of, or
be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving federal financial assistance."
Sex discrimination includes a broad range of behaviors, including
sexual harassment.
2) Types of Sex Discrimination
An individual may engage in sex discrimination when:
a) S/He sexually harasses an individual;
b) S/He gives rewards, punishments, assignments, promotions,
merit increases, etc., on the basis of the recipient's sex and
not the person's performance and merit;
c) S/He engages in gender-biased communications about women or
men;
d) S/He treats others unequally on the basis of gender in
work-related or academic duties or programs;
e) S/He does not provide female students with the same academic
opportunities as male students or vice versa;
f) S/He engages in sexist language, risque jokes, or gestures
with sexual overtones, in the workplace or classroom
environment without a defensible work or educational purpose;
g) S/He utilizes course materials that ignore or depreciate a
group based on their gender; and/or
h) S/He is in the position of an adviser and does not take an
employee's or student's career and educational aspirations
seriously because S/he believes the goals to be inappropriate
to the employee's or student's gender.
3) WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT SEX DISCRIMINATION?
Persons believing that they are subjected to sex discrimination
may file a formal or informal complaint based on the
classification of the complaint. For immediate advice or
assistance in responding to a complaint, contact the following
persons on campus:
* YOUR SUPERVISOR, CHAIR, DIRECTOR, OR DEAN;
* THE STAFF OF THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL OFFICE (405-4946);
* THE CAMPUS COMPLIANCE OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF HUMAN RELATIONS
PROGRAMS (405-2838);
* THE EQUITY ADMINISTRATOR IN YOUR COLLEGE/UNIT;
* THE EMPLOYEE SPECIALIST IN THE OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL(405-5651/52/53)
SEXUAL POLLUTION: THE POTENTIAL FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
There are some acts perceived by the recipient to have a
"sexual nature" that are offensive and annoying, but may not be
sexual harassment. These offensive behaviors in the workplace or
classroom pollute the working or learning environment. Therefore,
these acts have been labeled sexual pollution. Sexual pollution
has the potential of becoming a sexually harassing act. It is an
offensive act and should be considered improper if not job
related. Examples of sexual pollution are:
* continuous "pet" name calling, such as "baby," "sweetie, "or "
honey";
* referring to an individual as a "hunk," "fox," or "broad";
* referring to men in general as "dogs," "swine," or to women as
"bitches," "wenches, " or "chicks";
* remarks of a sexual nature, open displays of written and
pictorial erotica, or nude photographs or posters (such as a
nude magazine centerfold) in the office or classroom(unless job
related or displayed for educational purposes);
* sexually oriented practices or behaviors that:
(1) an employee or student finds objectionable or offensive,
(2) undermine an employee's or student's job performance or,
(3) cause discomfort, embarrassment, and humiliation on the
job or in the classroom;
* explicit graphic displays, cartoons of naked bodies or pictures
of simulated sexual acts (unless job related or displayed for
educational purposes);
* continuous gift giving with the intention of getting sexual
favors inreturn.
Supervisors are expected to discourage these offensive
behaviors. Employers and employess are expected to observe
professional conduct at all times.
***
A Single Act of Sexual Pollution By Itself May Not Constitute
Sexual Harassment. However, Continuous Acts With The Appearance
Of a Sexual Nature May Violate The UMCP's Policy on Sexual
Harassment. The "REASONABLE PERSON" Standard Will Be Used To
Determine Whether a particular Behavior Constitutes Sexual
Harassment Prohibited By The UMCP Policy.
Violators Of The Campus Policy On Sexual Harassment Are Subject
To Univerisity Discplinary Action And/Or Criminal And Civil
Liability.
CONSENTING RELATIONSHIPS DISTINGUISHED FROM SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Federal and state laws prohibiting sexual harassment, Title
VII Sexual Harassment Guidelines, and the UMCP Campus Sexual
Harassment Policy all address the issue of unwelcome sexual
conduct and must be clearly distinguished from purely personal,
social, and consenting relationships.
The intent of the UMCP Sexual Harassment Policy is to
prevent sexual harassment and not to prohibit personal and social
relationships among supervisors, co-workers, faculty, and
students. However, consenting, or those which appear consenting,
sexual relationships between supervisory and subordinate
personnel, and any other relationship with a definite power
differential is of concern to the University of Maryland. All
should be informed of the substantial risks in an "apparently"
consenting relationship where a power differential exists.
Charges of sexual harassment, favoritism, bias or sex
discrimination may be raised, even if both parties had initially
consented to the relationship.
**** See the Chancellor's Statement on Sexual Relationships and
Professional Conduct in the UMCP Policies and Procedures on
Sexual Harassment.
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 14:41:59 1993
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,uiuc.general
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment and Women in Engineering
Date: 7 Aug 1993 14:41:24 -0400
Message-ID: <240t0k$oh1@eff.org>
>This is [part of the] definition of sexual harassment from the U. of
>Maryland.
[...]
>6) The University of Maryland at College Park defines sexual
> harassment as:
[...]
> (3) other behavior of asexual nature where:
[...]
> C. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably
> interfering with an individual's academic or work
> performance, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, or
> offensive educational or working environment.
Like the U. of definition this definition seems to ban "conduct [that]
has the... effect ... of creating an ... offensive educational
enviornment" even when that conduct is not an unreasonable
interference with an individual's academic performance.
>VERBAL BEHAVIOR
> Listed below are examples of unacceptable verbal behaviors
>that may be in violation of the Campus' policy on sexual
>harassment. The behaviors listed below do not necessarily have to
>be specifically directed at an individual to constitute sexual
>harassment.
[...]
>Verbal Behavior
>* continuous idle chatter of a sexual nature and graphic sexual
>descriptions;
>* sexual slurs, sexual innuendos, and other comments about a
>person's clothing, body, and/or sexual activities;
[...]
>SEXUAL HARASSMENT: A FORM OF SEX DISCRIMINATION
[..]
>2) Types of Sex Discrimination
>An individual may engage in sex discrimination when:
[The first time I read this I thought it was saying that you are
allowed to engage sexual discrimination under certain conditions.]
[...]
>f) S/He engages in sexist language, risque jokes, or gestures
> with sexual overtones, in the workplace or classroom
> environment without a defensible work or educational purpose;
>g) S/He utilizes course materials that ignore or depreciate a
> group based on their gender; and/or
The distinction between the concepts of "sexual harassment" and
"sexual pollution" is important. The word "pollution" is, however, so
pejorative most readers must wonder why it isn't just "cleaned up"
by having the authorities ban and punish it.
[...]
>SEXUAL POLLUTION: THE POTENTIAL FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT
> There are some acts perceived by the recipient to have a
>"sexual nature" that are offensive and annoying, but may not be
>sexual harassment. These offensive behaviors in the workplace or
>classroom pollute the working or learning environment. Therefore,
>these acts have been labeled sexual pollution. Sexual pollution
>has the potential of becoming a sexually harassing act. It is an
>offensive act and should be considered improper if not job
>related. Examples of sexual pollution are:
>* continuous "pet" name calling, such as "baby," "sweetie, "or "
> honey";
>* referring to an individual as a "hunk," "fox," or "broad";
>* referring to men in general as "dogs," "swine," or to women as
> "bitches," "wenches, " or "chicks";
>* remarks of a sexual nature, open displays of written and
> pictorial erotica, or nude photographs or posters (such as a
> nude magazine centerfold) in the office or classroom(unless job
> related or displayed for educational purposes);
>* sexually oriented practices or behaviors that:
> (1) an employee or student finds objectionable or offensive,
> (2) undermine an employee's or student's job performance or,
> (3) cause discomfort, embarrassment, and humiliation on the
> job or in the classroom;
>* explicit graphic displays, cartoons of naked bodies or pictures
> of simulated sexual acts (unless job related or displayed for
> educational purposes);
>* continuous gift giving with the intention of getting sexual
> favors inreturn.
> Supervisors are expected to discourage these offensive
>behaviors. Employers and employess are expected to observe
>professional conduct at all times.
>***
>A Single Act of Sexual Pollution By Itself May Not Constitute Sexual
>Harassment. However, Continuous Acts With The Appearance Of a Sexual
>Nature May Violate The UMCP's Policy on Sexual Harassment. The
>"REASONABLE PERSON" Standard Will Be Used To Determine Whether a
>particular Behavior Constitutes Sexual Harassment Prohibited By The
>UMCP Policy. Violators Of The Campus Policy On Sexual Harassment Are
>Subject To Univerisity Discplinary Action And/Or Criminal And Civil
>Liability.
[...]
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 16:00:49 1993
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Message-ID: <1993Aug7.194733.8841@raven.alaska.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 19:47:33 GMT
In article swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
>In article <23uterINNi5b@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>In article swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
>>
>>} The student in question ftp'd the site, did a get of the README file
>>}(and if I remember correctly, even said that he did "get -" to print it
>>}to his screen), got the passwd file in question, and then logged out,
>>}without touching any of the other files. Wouldn't you consider that even
>>}SLIGHTLY suspicious?
>>
>>Not if the README file forbade getting the passwd file.
>
> So if the README forbids doing something, he reads it and does it anyway
>that's normal, acceptable behavior?
As any good parent will tell you, yes that is normal (and typical)
behavior for humans. If you don't find it acceptable then your
understanding of "normal behavior" needs adjustment to reality...
If I saw a README file that said don't look at our /etc/passwd
file, that is probably the first thing I'd do, just to see what
kind of stupidity I might find there. My intent might certainly
be "suspicious", but not criminal. I enjoy a good laugh.
But I don't recall that the README file in fact said that. Wasn't
it something to the effect of we have made everything here
readable by the world, but please don't because we are too stupid
or lazy figure out how to protect our own privacy, so we have put
all this stuff here for anonymous FTP and don't know what you
should or shouldn't see. So please don't look.
(Ok, so I paraphrased a little. Thats what is said...)
Do you find *that* acceptable behaviour?
Floyd
--
floyd@ims.alaska.edu A guest on the Institute of Marine Science computer
Salcha, Alaska system at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 7 19:37:35 1993
From: emv@garnet.msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in computer network"
Date: 7 Aug 1993 23:35:36 GMT
Message-ID: <241e88$95c@nigel.msen.com>
Brad Templeton (brad@clarinet.com) wrote:
: I expect she will consider the creation of a newsgroup to ridicule her
: to be harassment. And it is harassment, but of course by calling for
: this ban using an institutional backing, she has made herself a public
: figure and as such she can be legally ridiculed.
That's a particularly twisted, mean-spirited interpretation, Brad.
Should I put you down on record as encouraging harassment? Should
I start to cloak myself in the mantle of law and start harassing
you on the grounds that you are yourself a public figure?
Sheesh.
Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com
Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI 48103 +1 313 998 4562 (fax: 998 4563)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 00:58:55 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re:
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1993 04:51:56 GMT
In article L5G@rice.edu, swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
> I'm pretty confident that it'll either land on someone's desk with the
> knowledge or judgement to act properly or I'll be called in for an explanation
> before they zap my account.
[ deletion ]
> So, how would you have handled the case, ASSUMING that you considered what
> the guy did was suspicous?
Ok, first off, I don't really want to judge the people at SRI as good or bad.
No side administrator can act with the wisdom of Solomon all the time, so if
I think that on careful reflection they may have made a mistake, I don't mean
to suggest I would not have reacted the same way.
That said, I hope I would not let my perception of the conduct in question act
as my sole guide. I hope I would recognise an obligation to ask myself the
following questions:
1) given that the user in question attempted to access a listed file in a
directory available to anonymous FTP, do I have the right to claim they
acted in a "suspicious" manner?
2) Do I have the right to send a message when I know a risk exists that I
can not control of a student being punished for conduct that I helped
invite by setting up an anonymous FTP site for my own convenience?
3) Ought I not to first send the affected user some e-mail suggesting that
he accessed a file we would rather keep private, and requesting that he
not contact our FTP server again, and then monitor the results before
communicating with a site administrator?
John G. Spragge --- spraggej@jeff-lab.queensu.ca --- standard disclaimers apply
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 03:02:45 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge)
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1993 06:40:49 GMT
In article 9L9@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca, dmcanzi@ecis.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
> *Some* people observe limits. *Some* repressive governments
> *sometimes* respond to moral pressure. Generalizing this to *all* is
> unjustified. You can't hope to stop everybody who would post child
> porn to the net by moral pressure alone. There are no moral
> prohibitions sterner or more universally held than the prohibitions
> against lying, theft, and murder. Nevertheless, there *are* liars,
> thieves, and murderers.
Right.
So what do you want to argue? Since not absolutely everyone who might choose
to post child pornography will listen to reason, we should not even try to
reach them? Since we can't use pressure to get everyone to observe limits,
we shouldn't articulate (or debate) any limits at all?
> You've been arguing that people who post irresponsibly are providing
> "social engineers" with the ammunition they need to justify censoring
> the net, and calling for more responsible behaviour to prevent this.
Not really. I said that a social engineer has no greater ally than the
irresponsible citizen. I don't say that we have to behave in exactly the
way Ms. Prevost-Derbecker would approve of, or she will "get us". I mean
we have to come up with a rational, responsible defence for the way we do
choose to behave.
Look, like Ms. Prevost-Derbecker or not, she has come out with a rational
argument. She claims that certain material on the net will cause harm, and that
therefore the university authorities must delete this material from the
Waterloo net. She may have a few weaknesses on the technical side, but her
logic makes perfect sense.
With a few honourable exceptions, (Karl Cadie comes to mind), the response
has boiled down to an attempt to stop the debate by any means (mostly utterly
futile and childish) that come to mind. I started my main participation in
this thread with a response to a tirade that suggested the authorities had
no business listening to Ms. Prevost-Derbecker, because (so the poster claimed)
she represents only a tiny minority. I have seen people make the group
alt.sex.prevost-derbecker. And I have seen intense polarisation ("we" can
never concede any of "their" arguments, even if we admit we have no decent
defence for child pornography).
I have yet to see anybody who wants to support the "freedom" of the net say
either: child pornography causes harm, so we shouldn't have it, and we can
get rid of it without demolishing alt.sex.* or any of the other newsgroups;
or: child pornography does not really do anyone any harm, because...
Either statement would honestly address the issues Ms. Prevost-Derbecker
has raised.
> Calling for responsible behaviour won't deprive "social engineers" of
> examples of irresponsible behaviour they can use to justify censorship,
> so is useless for its apparent intended purpose.
Ok, first point: "they can use to justify censorship". I have said before,
and I will say again, that I don't accept this assumption about the motives
of the people involved. I don't see any evidence Ms. Prevost-Derbecker wants
examples of pornography so she can censor; I think she wants to censor
because she has found examples of pornography that appall her.
> Up to this point I thought you were talking about stopping child porn
> on the net by moral persuasion alone, without enforcement, and I was
> arguing that that was impossible. But now I see that you do intend to
> enforce moral standards on the net.
Wrong.
I don't want to "enforce" moral standards. The only time I have ever
supported any restrictions on any kind of speech, I have done so for
one reason and one reason only: because I thought the speech in question
threatened or incited immediate harm to a person or a group of people.
In the case of child pornography, I have made quite clear where I think
the harm lies. I have yet to get a single answer to those points.
> It costs less for UW to carry alt.binaries.pictures.erotica than not to
> carry it. (Hint: If we remove the newsgroup from our machines,
> various people on campus will find other ways to get it.)
I know that argument. It explains why I don't think pure censorship will
work.
Unfortunately, a technical argument with no ethical component comes down
to an argument about who has the power to enforce their will. The logical
answer from the point of view of people whom the contents of a.b.p.e
appalls would probably involve regular disk sweeps, and the expulsion/firing
of people who keep porno-gifs in their file spaces. And on to file hiding,
and encryption, and spot checks of personal disks and screens, and then
nobody gets any work done.
> Well, now you've got me confused. Above, you appeared to be arguing
> against my belief that moral persuasion alone is not enough to keep
> child porn and stuff like that off the net, then you argued that some
> sort of enforcement can be used, now you claim not to support
> censorship. If you're playing Devil's advocate, can you at least be a
> *consistent* Devil's advocate?
First off, I have never played devil's advocate here. If you want to know,
my position stands thus:
1) I think the first line of defence for a free community like this
comes from a sense of responsibility. In the face of an expression
of concern such as the current one, we have an obligation to either
defend the material (in the name of free speech), or help find a way
to prevent it from doing harm.
2) Ideally, we could come to a general consensus (based on reasonable
principles) about what we can accept on the news groups. When people
post stuff that violates these principles, we should first e-mail
them, asking them either not to post the material in the future, or
to restrict it to domains that do accept it.
3) I think a site has two legitimate defences against an individual who
persistently refuses to consider the concerns expressed: in the case
of an individual whose posts violate their own laws as well as the
laws of the receiving site, a complaint to their system administrators
would make sense; I think a site can also take measures to block all
the material from a specific user at another site, if that user has
posted obnoxious or illegal material and refused all requests to stop.
> This is either doublethink or autoproctology. A solution to
> irresponsible behaviour that doesn't stop irresponsible behaviour, even
> non-coercively, is not a solution. And if you don't want to stop the
> attacks of censors by stopping irresponsible behaviour, then why did
> you tell us in another posting that irresponsible behaviour is giving
> would-be censors ammunition, and we have to be more responsible.
Stopping irresponsible behaviour has value, because irresponsible behaviour
causes harm (by definition). I should not have used the word ammunition, I
admit. I meant that we can not logically tolerate such egregious abuses as
the posting of child pornography, and then complain when other people react
to them.
As for your continuing line that my proposed solution won't stop irresponsible
behaviour: why not try it first?
> Nevertheless, you didn't until she did. And the last time I remember
> seeing your name on the net, it was in a similar censorship flap, and
> I think you were preaching responsibility then too.
Wrong. I did speak out, quite strongly against the posting of child porn on
the net (in the approporiate news group) well before anything about Ms.
Prevost-Derbecker's arguments hit the net here.
As for "preaching responsibility", why thank you.
> Look at the world around you. People have access to cars and alcohol.
> Some people drive drunk. People have knives. Some people stab other
> people. If enough people *can* do something, it is inevitable that
> some of them *will*.
Ok, first off: people have knives, but they don't have the "freedom" to
stab one another; people have cars, but in most places, drunk driving
will get you a stiff fine and a criminal record (the first time out).
If we had a system where people who posted child pornography lost their
userids (or where posting from userids that had posted child porn in
the past got blocked from all the newsgroups at a particular site) that
would not violate my notion of freedom. I agree we can't stop all
activities that might cause people to hurt themselves or others, but we
do have the right to restrain them after they have caused problems,
particularly if they refuse to stop.
John G. Spragge --- spraggej@jeff-lab.queensu.ca --- standard disclaimers apply
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 13:22:46 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Where's the "Banned Computer Uses" list?
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1993 16:16:36 GMT
I repeat:
The post you are quoting in your list is NOT UMass/Boston policy. It
is merely an excerpt from a personal post I made over a year ago. It
is not school policy, it is not University policy, it is not
department policy. It isn't ANY policy. Please remove it from your
list.
How can I be more explicit? There is *NO OFFICIAL POLICY* here
relating to .plan files.
Continuing to quote from an old personal post of mine is just
embarassing to both of us. Please remove this excerpt from your list.
thanks, Betsy
--
System Administrator Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston Phone : 617-287-6448
100 Morrissey Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 14:32:21 1993
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Date: 8 Aug 1993 17:43:36 GMT
Message-ID: <243e08INNpve@mojo.eng.umd.edu>
In article spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA writes:
}Any rights we violate we violate merely
}
}> SAY as much as you want. But denouncing it is a far cry from
}> censoring it.
}
}I already have. Others have written to say that the complaints against child
}pornography come from "radical feminists" the authorities should not listen
}to. You claim that pressuring people not to post child pornography amounts to
}"self censorship".
I claim that pressuring people not to post child pornography on the
grounds that if people don't stop, they WILL be censored, constitutes
self censorship.
}> It might. But in many cases, it will not. In some cases, it will
}> encourage them.
}
}Then how does Amnesty International work?
As you may have noticed, despite Amnesty International's efforts,
executions still occur in the United States.
}> It does. Pedophiles are an easy target, and hence a good start. Once
}> they've managed to establish censorship, they'll next go after other
}> "pornography"-- all of alt.sex.*, for instance. Then they'll work on
}> obscenity/profanity in all newsgroups. Then, perhaps the political
}> groups, perhaps rec.guns, perhaps soc.singles. Sooner or later,
}> you'll have Prodigy.
}
}If the public gets the idea you have advanced here, that freedom for the
}net has to equal freedom for child porn, then we'll have "prodigy" so
}fast we'll all get flash burn.
At least we'll know where we stand.
}If we defend the pedophiles, particularly on the "slippery slope" grounds
}you suggest, then the public will get (correctly, in my view) the idea that
}we constitute a danger and that that we need to have censorship imposed.
}After that, we'll lose every battle on that argument alone.
The public doesn't know the net from a hole in the ground. The only
way the public will get the idea that the net constitutes a danger to
them is if the authorities who will gain power by censoring the net
convince the public of that.
}I keep telling you two things: one, "they" don't really exist. Certainly,
}"they" don't have a plan laid out that says pedophiles first, then a.b.p.e,
}then alt.sex, and then (when we have people used to it) prodigy.
Doesn't matter. There will always be those who wish to impose
additional censorship-- and each time they try, they will be starting
off from a more and more censored net. It's more like a ratchet than
a slippery slope.
}If everyone who found a copy of a posting child pornography wrote the poster
}to say so, both publically and through e-mail, then the psychological pressure
}would amount to a tremendous incentive not to do it again. I'd rather close
}ranks that way, and deal with material we know causes harm (again, if you don't
}know that, say so) ourselves.
But if that doesn't work, you are quite willing to accept censorship
through forceful means to stop child pornography, right?
I don't know that the posting of child pornography causes harm--
certainly the making of it does. But if I see child pornography, no
one is going to be harmed as a result, unless you count my disgust as
harm to me. I suspect that child pornography provides titillation for
pedophiles, and disgust for much of the rest of us, and nothing else.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 14:32:31 1993
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Date: 8 Aug 1993 17:48:14 GMT
Message-ID: <243e8uINNpvs@mojo.eng.umd.edu>
In article swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
}In article <23uterINNi5b@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
}>Not if the README file forbade getting the passwd file.
} So if the README forbids doing something, he reads it and does it anyway
}that's normal, acceptable behavior?
It points to defiance as a motive as opposed to a desire to hack. I
don't consider setting up an anonymous FTP site which is not open to
the net at large to be normal, acceptable behavior, so I don't think
any norms apply to the actions the student took.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 14:33:00 1993
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Where's the "Banned Computer Uses" list?
Date: 8 Aug 1993 14:32:26 -0400
Message-ID: <243grq$ro9@eff.org>
betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
[...]
>The post you are quoting in your list is NOT UMass/Boston policy.
>It is merely an excerpt from a personal post I made over a year ago.
>It is not school policy, it is not University policy, it is not
>department policy. It isn't ANY policy.
The Banned.1992 list doesn't assert that the ban/challenge was
official UMass/Boston policy. It asserts that computer material was
ban/challenged at UMass/Boston in 1992. I believe this assertion to be
true.
In your original article you wrote:
'Our policy is that all finger info and public X-terminal screens
should be of roughly PG-13 offensiveness or less. We ask users to
remove obscene or blatantly sexual .plan files. For example, last
week a user had an "ansi art" .plan which repeatedly blasted a
four-letter word acrss the screen. Prior to him, another user was
asked to remove a crude sexual limerick. Both users complied without
complaint... I don't think they really felt that strongly about it.
I get complaints from professors when we allow these to remain.'
>Please remove it from your list.
[...]
It seems to belong on the list of computer material that was banned or
challenged in 1992. If you like, I'd be happy to add a line that the
ban was the action of the system administrators and not official
university/department policy.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 15:02:44 1993
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Date: 8 Aug 1993 19:38:17 +0100
Message-ID: <243h6p$m9t@news.mantis.co.uk>
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
> So if the README forbids doing something, he reads it and does it anyway
>that's normal, acceptable behavior?
It's certainly normal. Whether it's acceptable depends on what the
something is.
mathew
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 15:14:44 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,uiuc.general,uiuc.civil-liberty
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie)
Subject: [DI] "Committee finds discipline system fair to students"
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1993 19:03:48 GMT
[Excerpts from the _Daily Illini_, p. 1, Aug. 4, 1993.
If you have gopher, you can read the whole article. Try:
gopher -p1/UI/DI/1993/August/4 harpoon.cso.uiuc.edu 70
- Carl]
======================
News Story by Elaine Richardson, 08/04/93
[...]
A committee reviewing the University discipline system found that although
the system is fair to students, several changes would further improve the
existing methods.
[...]
Recommendations outlined in the report include training police officers in
cultural diversity; instituting a student advocate service to help
students understand how the discipline system functions and / or act as an
adviser; and allowing student judicial officers to present cases to the
Subcommittee on Undergraduate Student Conduct.
[...]
The report also recommends that letters of charge sent to students are
made more specific by indicating rules broken, evidence against the
student and a copy of statements from any police officers so the student
can decide if he or she wants to question that person.
[...]
But Student Government Association President Joe Frederick, junior in LAS,
said that the committee did not go far enough to recognize or correct the
problems in the discipline system.
[...]
"But there are two more questions that it doesn't mention anywhere, which
are political cases or keeping records of each verdict," Frederick said,
adding that it is necessary to keep verdict records to have a precedent
for decisions, especially in political cases.
[...]
===========================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 17:17:28 1993
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Where's the "Banned Computer Uses" list?
Date: 8 Aug 1993 20:41:57 GMT
Message-ID: <243oel$mu2@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>
In article <243grq$ro9@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>
>[...]
>>The post you are quoting in your list is NOT UMass/Boston policy.
>
>The Banned.1992 list doesn't assert that the ban/challenge was
>official UMass/Boston policy. It asserts that computer material was
>ban/challenged at UMass/Boston in 1992. I believe this assertion to be
>true.
I think you are on the border of badgering. Unless you have more examples,
I would suggest that you should should strongly consider dropping this
entry if you come out with a new list.
>
>In your original article you wrote:
> 'Our policy is that all finger info and public X-terminal screens
> should be of roughly PG-13 offensiveness or less. We ask users to
> remove obscene or blatantly sexual .plan files. For example, last
> week a user had an "ansi art" .plan which repeatedly blasted a
> four-letter word acrss the screen. Prior to him, another user was
> asked to remove a crude sexual limerick. Both users complied without
> complaint... I don't think they really felt that strongly about it.
> I get complaints from professors when we allow these to remain.'
>
Although this doesn't say whether there were specific complaints about
the two users, this quote sounds very much like common university harassment
policies. The students were "asked" to remove the offending material, and
complied. At Columbia, people in authority are _required_ to not ignore
harassment complaints. Simply asking the perpetrator to cease the activity
is the mildest form of discipline there is. Certainly there is no hint
of banning.
>
>It seems to belong on the list of computer material that was banned or
>challenged in 1992. If you like, I'd be happy to add a line that the
>ban was the action of the system administrators and not official
>university/department policy.
>
As long as it doesn't make the next list, then I think everything
is OK. Maybe they made a mistatement. Maybe it shouldn't have been included.
We may never disagree. But it is importnat to show repect for others'
proffesional judgment.
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.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 18:10:49 1993
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Message-ID:
Date: 8 Aug 93 22:57:57 GMT
In article <243e8uINNpvs@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
}>Not if the README file forbade getting the passwd file.
} So if the README forbids doing something, he reads it and does it anyway
}that's normal, acceptable behavior?
It points to defiance as a motive as opposed to a desire to hack. I
don't consider setting up an anonymous FTP site which is not open to
the net at large to be normal, acceptable behavior, so I don't think
any norms apply to the actions the student took.
Is this a rehash of the discussion some months ago about SRI's
anonymous-ftp site which had a README saying the stuff in the "pub" directory
was not for the public to access anonymously, or is this a new event?
At the very least, they could have put the private stuff in a
directory marked "private" or "SRI-Only" or some such.
--
# Pray for peace; Bill
# Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# White House Comment Line 1-202-456-1111 fax 1-202-456-2461
# ROT-13 public key available upon request
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 18:22:20 1993
From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Where's the "Banned Computer Uses" list?
Date: 8 Aug 1993 22:18:11 GMT
Message-ID: <243u33$jpc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
In article <243oel$mu2@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
> Although this doesn't say whether there were specific complaints about
>the two users, this quote sounds very much like common university harassment
>policies. The students were "asked" to remove the offending material, and
>complied. At Columbia, people in authority are _required_ to not ignore
>harassment complaints. Simply asking the perpetrator to cease the activity
>is the mildest form of discipline there is. Certainly there is no hint
>of banning.
But if common policies result in banning material, the cited
example belong on the list. The word "asked" here looks to be a polite
way of saying "ordered". If the statement is of the form "Remove X" WITH
AN IMPLIED "or else", that's an action under color of authority. Indeed,
you yourself class it as "discipline" (never mind "mildest form"). So we
have that finger info or screens of greater than PG-13 offensiveness
(determined by who?) subjects one to discipline. This certainly sounds
like a proper entry in a banned/challenged list to me.
--
Seth Finkelstein sethf@athena.mit.edu
Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself.
(and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else).
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 18:22:47 1993
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Where's the "Banned Computer Uses" list?
Date: 8 Aug 1993 18:22:13 -0400
Message-ID: <243ual$scc@eff.org>
dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
[...]
> I think you are on the border of badgering. Unless you have more examples,
>I would suggest that you should should strongly consider dropping this
>entry if you come out with a new list.
[...]
I have no intention of putting it (a 1992 incident) on the 1993 list.
Some items from the 1992 list, such as Iowa State University's ban of
alt.sex, will be on the 1993 list because they have continued into
1993.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 18:24:12 1993
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re: "Interaction" with Kadie
Date: 8 Aug 1993 18:23:38 -0400
Message-ID: <243uda$sdb@eff.org>
wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705) writes:
[...]
>Is this a rehash of the discussion some months ago about SRI's
>anonymous-ftp site which had a README saying the stuff in the "pub"
>directory was not for the public to access anonymously, or is this a
>new event?
[...]
It is a rehash.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 18:28:08 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge)
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1993 22:22:50 GMT
In article 243e08INNpve@mojo.eng.umd.edu, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> I claim that pressuring people not to post child pornography on the
> grounds that if people don't stop, they WILL be censored, constitutes
> self censorship.
Ok, I'd claim a subtle distinction between saying that irresponsible behaviour
inevitably leads to state authorities taking repressive action, and saying
to someone that if you don't stop doing x we will censor you.
> The public doesn't know the net from a hole in the ground. The only
> way the public will get the idea that the net constitutes a danger to
> them is if the authorities who will gain power by censoring the net
> convince the public of that.
Um... your postulate of three groups (the "public" the "authorities" and
the net.community doesn't hold up. The third group constitutes a significant
subset of the first, and the third doesn't really exist. Nobody has set up
a "shadow" net.regulation.bureau, ready to spring into action as soon as it
can get the necessary public support.
In fact, the "public" will demand that the "authorities" censor the net if
we convince them that the net has eveolved into a free playground for people
who want to rape their kids. People get funny about threats to their children;
nobody responds more ruthlessly than a parent protecting their young.
The people who have the actual ability (technical, etc.) don't want to
censor the net; they have better things to do. The administrators concerned
don't want to censor the net either; they have better uses for their budgets.
And most people who have no connection to the net don't care, as long as
we don't threaten them.
> Doesn't matter. There will always be those who wish to impose
> additional censorship-- and each time they try, they will be starting
> off from a more and more censored net. It's more like a ratchet than
> a slippery slope.
Nope, each time they attack a more defensible target. You can suppress
child pornography on the net quite easily; just having it on the server
at most sites steers close to the windy side of the law, and both posters
and downloaders risk criminal sanctions.
If you then want to censor sex shots, well, they don't violate the law
most places, so you can't use legal argument or legal sanctions. And if
you then decide you want to stop "offensive" material, then you run into
free speech guarantees most places.
Each time you want to censor something more, you have a harder uphill battle;
you have to deal with a larger range of material, and you have to buck much
stronger free speech guarantees.
> But if that doesn't work, you are quite willing to accept censorship
> through forceful means to stop child pornography, right?
a) I don't support the net as a law-free zone, so I think if anyone posts
or downloads material illegally, the police should prosecute them to
the full extent of the law, and
b) I think that system administrators have a right to remove items from a
server if that material violates the laws at their site, and
c) I think a site has the right to reject all the posts comint to their
news server that originate from a user who has posted material that
violates (the site's) local laws and ignored requests to stop or direct
the material elsewhere.
If you consider that "censorship by force", fine. I don't.
> I don't know that the posting of child pornography causes harm--
> certainly the making of it does. But if I see child pornography, no
> one is going to be harmed as a result, unless you count my disgust as
> harm to me. I suspect that child pornography provides titillation for
> pedophiles, and disgust for much of the rest of us, and nothing else.
Thank you for at last addressing the issue. I answer thus:
It provides more than "titillation". It provides positive reinforcement.
It suggests that children "like" or "want" to have adults rape them. It
tells the pedophile that other people accept and support this kind of
behavoiur; they will even flaunt it on the net.
In short, it encourages people bent that way to rape children.
John G. Spragge --- spraggej@jeff-lab.queensu.ca --- standard disclaimers apply
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 19:03:38 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk
From: grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward)
Subject: Re: Where's the "Banned Computer Uses" list?
Message-ID:
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1993 22:42:21 GMT
As long as the original entry was factual and footnoted to clarify
exactly its original status, I urge Kadie (and all historians) to
stand firm against those would would expunge or rewrite history out
of shame or any reason other than correcting factual errors.
When dealing with people who wield power over others sometimes the
only recourse is to at least document it so all in the future can
see and perhaps learn from its lesson. Documentation is perhaps the
most civil form of defending the rights of the weak that we have.
If Elizabeth Schwartz ought to be ashamed for her policy on censorship
on campus a year ago then she ought to apologize and correct her
actions and her philosophy that led her to that action rather than
try to put it down the memory hole. That's the least we can do for those
who have little voice and may have been intimidated by her beliefs.
--
grady@netcom.com voice/fax (707) 826-7715
compiler of Moby lexical databases, including
Moby Thesaurus, second edition: 30,000 roots, 2.5 million synonyms
finger grady@netcom.com for more information.
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 21:57:43 1993
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: spraggej@Jeff-Lab.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge)
Subject: Re: Ethics of complaining to site (was Re:
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 01:44:05 GMT
In article sdb@eff.org, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705) writes:
>
> [...]
> >Is this a rehash of the discussion some months ago about SRI's
> >anonymous-ftp site which had a README saying the stuff in the "pub"
> >directory was not for the public to access anonymously, or is this a
> >new event?
> [...]
>
> It is a rehash.
Alas, most people have wanted to talk about that regrettable incident.
However, I wanted to discuss a wider topic than that here.
Certainly, we can't talk about the ethics of complaining to someone's
site without discussing this incident. But a more mundane form of the
problem arises in this form:
1) someone posts an opinion that you consider slander, or you think
defines them as one sick puppy (examples I have seen over the past
couple of months include: the Quebec education laws amount to child
abuse, five year olds can consent to sex with adults, and SRI did
nothing wrong); each of these got someone's dander severely up.
2) some user feels the temptation to send a letter to the site admin.
pointing out what an infantile, weird, warped individual they have
working for them.
This raises the question: when can you level such a complaint. Unfortunately,
I used an example dealing with an attack on Mr Kadie that stemmed from the
SRI incident last year, so we sort of got on to that topic.
John G. Spragge --- spraggej@jeff-lab.queensu.ca --- standard disclaimers apply
From caf-talk Caf Aug 8 23:31:31 1993
From: rzepela@CVI.HAHNEMANN.EDU
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: [KWR] "UW to probe offensive images in computer network"
Date: 9 Aug 1993 03:30:06 GMT
Message-ID: <244gbu$hpd@castor.hahnemann.edu>
In article ,
mskucher@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF]) writes:
>IMHO, it is very easy to defend free speech despite the fact that there
>exists some set of people who will abuse it (ie. harrass others). You
>have to take care of one thing at a time. Censoring the population,
>then snuffing out harrassment and then restoring free speech doesn't
>make sense to me.
What he said!!!
It does seem a bit silly to ask people defending free speech to
quantify *how much freedom* first.
As for the issue of the new newsgroups' names, I don't know what that
is, but if they can be seen as a light-hearted needling, I think that
goes a long way to demonstrating the true nature and true diversity of
USENET.
We wouldn't want anyone thinking USENET was a place where little
goes on but perverts sitting in dark basements uudecoding child
porn all night ;-)
As for the arguments on the total lack of educational value of
the non-technical groups, is it really that difficult to demonstrate
some credit-worthiness of experience using non-professional
electronic communication? how about in sociology??
Fer Chrissake, college students get credit now for mastering
Lotus 1-2-3 macros. I can't see why someone can't build some
credits around the nuances of electronic conversations.
Pepper the course descriptions with nice soothing phrases like
"the global marketplace", "diversity of the workplace",
"the town square", "high tech", and watch the boobs line up....
+------ Anthony J. Rzepela rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu -----+
| Hahnemann University, Philadelphia (215) 762-7741 |
+-----------Opinions expressed are nobody's, definitely not HU's-----+
