From caf-talk Caf Apr 4 14:49:53 1994 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news From: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Fwd:) Subject: "Lt. Starbuck's" problems at UWO Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 18:10:04 GMT [A repost - Carl] [paraphrase: [a student at U. of Western Ontario] I created a version of the Karla Homolka FAQ. As a result: Newsgroup "alt.fan.karla-homolka" was banned by the U., I was told not to keep Homolka files in my account, I was interviewed by the police, my account was shut down for a week, my home computer was searched by the police.] Message-ID: <054304Z04041994@anon.penet.fi> Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.fan.karla-homolka,alt.pub-ban.homolka,alt.pub-ban,can.legal,alt.fan.joe-baptista From: an54835@anon.penet.fi (Lt. Starbuck) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 05:38:12 UTC Subject: "Lt. Starbuck's" problems at UWO People may be aware of certain events at UWO and the enforcement of Judge Kovac's publication ban on details of the Karla Teale trial. As a direct participant, I feel I have my own "tale" to tell. I. "Editor" of the Karla Homolka FAQ Reg Quinton, the news coordinator at UWO, stated that "Lt. Starbuck" was the FAQ author. This is not entirely true. While I have written many portions of the FAQ (almost entirely non-rumors and therefore outside the legal territory of the Kovac's ban), my function was as an editor. For reasons that seemed important at the time, I imposed this task upon myself. Last November, I concluded that the original newsgroup was already out of date, and some of the background on the case was inaccurate. As "editor" I spell-checked the document and reformatted it. Parts of the introduction were rewritten as details were inaccurate (the original FAQ placed the murders several weeks apart), and several new rumors that were posted by others to the newsgroup was added. From my real account, I posted a copy of this in the newsgroup "alt.fan.karla-homolka" on December 5. People at CCS noticed the posting of this document, and one of the prime reasons that "alt.fan.karla-homolka" was pulled at Western was the posting of the said document from within UWO itself. I was warned by Dave Martin of the Computer Science department here that having these files in my file area and posting them may be in contravention of Judge Kovac's publication ban. I deleted the files from my home directory (temporarily) and got myself an account on anon.penet.fi, where I became known as "Lt. Starbuck". Around the same time period, "alt.fan.karla-homolka" was removed as a newsgroup by all Canadian universities. Sometime in December, for reasons which also seemed important at the time, I added several new sections to the FAQ. I did this in consultation with Justin Wells and Neal "The Trial Ban Breaker" Parsons. Posting an FAQ of lurid rumors didn't justify the existence of the Karla Homolka FAQ, so information was added on 1) obtaining copies of banned material at ftp sites 2) reading "alt.fan.karla-homolka" at a site where it is banned, and posting to that group anonymously. 3) providing some reasons to oppose the publication ban. This document was posted on December 17, and was later renamed "Version 2.0" by myself. "Version 2.1" was posted in late January. II. Abdul's Mailinglist I have been following the "alt.fan.karla-homolka" newsgroup for several months, and have known the presence of one "Abdul" for some time. Back in late November, a uuencoded WP-5.1 file was posted to the newsgroup by the Abdul entity. It included a copy of the newsgroup FAQ and several news posts from the group, including one which contained the transcript of "A Current Affair". Not one to concern himself with the privacy of others, the original posts all contained the internet addresses of each of person's involved with posting the document. I imagine they were included within the WP-5.1 file without their consent. I am one of the few people who have actually traced Abdul's real identity. This is another story in itself. For many months now, the directory /tmp/karla at ftp.uu.net has been an unnofficial ftp site for files related to the Homolka case. I have long suspected that the person who has maintained this directory is the self-same Abdul. Copies of posts, with reachable addresses, were placed in this directory. Among them, the original posts containing "A Current Affair" and the Washington Post article, which included the name and date of the material posted. In December, another WP-5.1 file was placed in this directory, from the Abdul entity. Included was a modified version of the FAQ which modified one of the rumors that was posted some time ago in the newsgroup. As I had a copy of the original post from which this rumor was derived, I concluded that the Abdul entity and the original poster were one and the same. The entity who uploaded the files at /tmp/karla had every known copy of the newsgroup FAQ, and as self-appointed editor, I was concerned that on one of the documents, my "real" address appeared at the bottom (in fact, it was the post that got the newsgroup banned at UWO), and the person who uploaded it didn't give a shit about whether or not my "real" name was associated with the document. I posted several warnings about the potential legal danger of this but the entity continued to upload the document well into late December. Abdul himself is the creator of the "Teale Tales Mailinglist", which was formed some time last year. The first two mailings (from a penet.fi account) consisted of garbled messages and ascii garbage, but as of late January, he had almost 1000 subscribers, and in the latest issue of ID magazine, he boasts that as many as 10000 people may have seen his material. Gordon Domm indeed. The maintainer of the anonymous server, julf@anon.penet.fi, had yanked his account in early February for blatant abuse of the system. Julf told Abdul that he refused to send one letter to 800 addresses, so Abdul responded by sending the his letters to 50 at a time. Abdul has since got an account at IO.COM, and sends out his material from there, and by his own admission has about 350 or so people on his list, or in his own words "a small percentage of names got out due to a mailer error. I think the number was 50 or so - about 15% of my subsciber list." This last sentence was in regard to the systems people at Western gaining access to a partial list of TTML subscribers (I forwared a copy to Reg Quinton in early March). III. How did User X's problems start at UWO? "User X" aka "Lt. Starbuck" (myself) was contacted by the London Police in late February in regards to a very serious incident. A copy of the FAQ ("Version 2.1" to be precise) had been faxed to the Attorney General, with his "real" address on it, and "Abdul's". This disturbed me, as I would never have contemplated sending this document out to the Attorney General or any other government official. So what had happened? In Reg Quinton's words, the attorney general had it "because Abdul, the ELECTRONIC Gordon Domm ... sent it to them!". So how did this happen? In Abdul's own words, to a friend of mine: "When [Lt. Starbuck] sent me his all-new FAQ back on January 31st, I decided to pass around a few copies to people in the media, to let them know the extent of the stuff wehad here on the net. I think I sent it out to the CBC, CFTO, CITY, The [Toronto] Star, The [Toronto] Sun and the Globe and Mail all through Joe [Baptista's] fax link. At this time I was using the anon.penet.fi machine for the mailinglist. At first I mailed them all through the anon server, but they kept bouncing (presumably because I put them all together on one line in the format name%chiken.planet.org@anon.penet.fi). After a while I got fed up and mailed them through my regular account, regardless if my name showed. I must have put the AG's [Attorney General] address on at this point. I copied addresses from Joe's list (ontprem, ontag, etc.) onto a piece of paper with the media addresses. "I made three mistakes: 1) not sending out the articles via anon.penet.fi, exposing my name; 2) not stripping the headers from [Starbuck's] original letter; 3) being an idiot for putting Boyd's address on the same paper as the media. [ not to mention "ontprem", the Premier of Ontario, Bob Rae! ]" To make a long story short, Abdul had copied a letter I had sent him, and sent it off to the Attorney General, through Joe's fax gateway, with my name attached to it. He had took a piece of private mail without my consent, and mailed it off to several media sources and the attorney general - with my name still attached! While people may be aware of my "shabby" treatment for this matter, they should be reminded that my troubles began with Abdul's "accident". A special investigation of the OPP in Toronto invsestigating electronic ban breaking sent in a local detective in London to look after the matter of the faxed FAQ file. In late February, my account was shut down for the period of a week. In that time, I was interrogated by the detective, in the presence of both Dave Martin and Reg Quinton. I cooperated to the best of his ability, and a day later, the detective investigated my home computer to search for any possible files related to the case. I let him do this in the full knowledge that he could just as easily got a warrant to search the house if I had not let him. He found nothing and I promised my full cooperation. The police know that I was person who created the version of the FAQ that was sent off to the Attorney General (2.1). The police also know that the Abdul entity and the person who faxed the FAQ to the Attorney General are one and the same. They know this because I told them. They also know that the Abdul entity on the anon.penet.fi machine and the Abdul entity from IO.COM are one and the same (this is patently obvious). For several weeks, this matter has been hanging over my head. I have yet to be charged for any criminal offence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi. -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = From caf-talk Caf Apr 4 19:21:51 1994 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news From: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Fwd:) Subject: Results: Account locking policies Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 23:15:05 GMT [A repost - Carl] [paraphrase: Here are the results of an informal survey on locking-user accounts. Among the results: 12 schools and businesses would lock out or ban a user who printed "pornographic" pictures, 11 would do nothing.] From: dave@unm.edu (Dave Grisham) Newsgroups: comp.security.misc,comp.security.unix,alt.security,comp.admin.policy Subject: Results: Account locking policies Date: 4 Apr 1994 15:12:46 -0600 Message-ID: <2npvse$24ua@enzu.unm.edu> RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE ON ACCOUNT LOCKING PROCEDURES 26 Univ/Colleges & 4 Businesses/other responded. I found the results interesting. If I didn't receive or lost your answers I'm sorry. -grish 1. Accounts that have a guessable password. Nothing No Answer E-mail Login Shell Delete Account 4 4 7 1 1 Lock Don't check Password Filter Shawdowpassword/Kerberos 6 2 4 1 2. Accounts with multiple off-site logins. Nothing No Answer E-mail Lock 6 5 2 5 Don't check Telephone User Delete Account Warning 2 1 1 2 Depends on User Log-in Shell Monitor 2 1 3 3. Accounts that have large mail boxes which are impacing the system. Nothing No Answer E-mail Move File to Home Directory Lock 1 5 5 8 3 Work w/User on Bandwidth Post Names of "Hogs" Allocatee More Space 1 1 1 Delete Spool Warning Discard Oldest Messages to Maintain Quota 1 2 2 4. Accounts running password guessers, COPS or TOPS. Lock and Report Close Account & Forward Name to Dean Account 1 1 Lock Delete Not a Problem Yet Monitor Ban Warning 13 1 4 1 1 E-mail Use Shadow Password Disciplinary Suspension 2 4 1 5. Accounts that are harrassing other users. Warning Ban Report to Authorities Lock E-mail Remove Access 6 1 5 9 3 1 No Answer Report to Dean No a Problem Yet 1 2 2 6. Accounts that are trying to or have defeated security. Ban Monitor Lock Talk With E-mail 1 6 14 1 2 Close Account and Forward Name to Dean Delete Account Warning 2 2 1 Case by Case 1 7. Accounts that breakin to other machiens or accounts. Ban Work with other administrators Call police to improve security 2 1 1 Delete Account Lock Inform other administrators Monitor 4 15 1 1 Nothing Close Account and Forward Name to Dean E-mail 1 1 1 No Answer 2 8. Printing of pornographic pictures/gifs. Nothing Ban Not a Problem Yet Post Name of User Report to Management 6 1 5 1 2 Have Specified Printing Times Lock No Answer 1 11 3 9. Other incidents. Please describe. For other incidents *not* specified: Lock Lock & Report E-mail Delete Warning 3 1 1 1 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lock for these SPECIFICS: Running multiple jobs, .rhost files, chain letters, fingering sites, pirated software, faked e-mail, and running scripts. 26 Univ/Collesges & 4 Businesses Names of Sites: Aarhus University, Denmark Allegheny College California Polytechnical Institute University of California at Davis University of California at Irvine University of California at Santa Clara California State University, Los Angeles Columbia University of Denver Florida State University University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign Northern Illinois University Indiana University University of Kentucky Institute for Machine Tools and Manufacturing University of New Mexico Occidental College University of Pennsylvania Skidmore College South Dakota State University University of Sussex, UK University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Texas, Austin University of Toronto, Canada Utah State University Victoria University, Canada ------------ Ben Adams Technologies Schlumberger Limited netcom.com (unknown) -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = From caf-talk Caf Apr 5 18:24:10 1994 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news From: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Fwd:) Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy] Re: Lehigh University censors gun postings Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 22:18:04 GMT [A repost - Carl] ["Summary: This is a critique of Lehigh University's computer policy. Without reference to any general university policies, it seems to authorizes punishment without due process and punishment of what (by academic freedom standards) should be protected speech. It offers come privacy protection. It does not say how it was created or approved, so I don't know if the university community participated in its creation or if it was just imposed by fiat."] Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy] Re: Lehigh University censors gun postings Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 21:37:15 GMT Summary: This is a critique of Lehigh University's computer policy. Without reference to any general university policies, it seems to authorizes punishment without due process and punishment of what (by academic freedom standards) should be protected speech. It offers come privacy protection. It does not say how it was created or approved, so I don't know if the university community participated in its creation or if it was just imposed by fiat. The policy is available via gopher. Try: gopher gopher.CC.Lehigh.EDU 70 then select "Policy on Lehigh's Coputer Usage." [...] >Those who do not abide by the policies listed below should expect at >least suspension of computer privileges and possible referral to the >University Committee on Discipline. [...] This suggests that the Computer Center claims authority to avoid the univerity's due process procedure and investigate, judge, and punish users on its own. The policy could be improved by respecting user's due process rights. >Should the security of a computer system be threatened, user files >may be examined under the direction of the Computing Center Director. This is pretty good, but it could be improved by saying that this is the only way in which files will be searched or (it is not the only way) listing the other ways (for example, a court order.) [...] > 9. The following type of information or software cannot be > placed on any university-owned computer system: > > ~ That which infringes upon the rights of another > person. This is meaninglessly vague. > ~ That which is abusive, profane, or sexually > offensive to the average person. Is this consistent with the university-wide rules on free expression and university facilities? I notice the Lehigh library computer contains a several lines of information on books with the word "nigger" in the title. (e.g. _Nigger of the Narciccus_). And at least one with "bitch" in the title (i.e. _Clio & the bitch goddess_). The Library computer seems to be in violation of this policy. A student who saves a library computer search could also be in violation of the university computer policy. According to the American Association of Univeristy Professor, academic freedom says that a university should distinguish between harassing and merely offensive expression and that mearly offensive expression should be protected. [ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/academic/speech-codes.aaup] Maybe Lehigh doesn't subscribe to that notion of academic freedom. But if it has its own notions, then the computer policy should at least reference the university-wide speech code (or whatever) that gives the University's policy on offensive expression. [...] > ~ That which consists of information which may injure > someone else and/or lead to a lawsuit or criminal > charges. Examples of these are: pirated software, > destructive software, pornographic materials, or > libelous statements. [...] Merely "pornography materials" are not illegal (in fact they are are Constitutionally protected). I suggest "obscene materials". [...] > 10. You must not harass others by sending annoying, > threatening, libelous, or sexually, racially, or > religiously offensive messages. [...] So is it OK to harass others by sending other kinds of messages? Writing an anti-harassment policy is hard to do. Rather than create one just for computers, it would be better to tie into the university-wide policy. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = From caf-talk Caf Apr 5 23:22:52 1994 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news From: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Fwd:) Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy] Re: Lehigh University censors gun postings Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 03:20:08 GMT [A repost - Carl] [paraphrase: [A student at Lehigh U.] The censorship policy is enforced. "One person had stored some alt.sex.bondage postings, and was threatened with loss of account (which was needed for classwork). Another for a line in his .signature that 'offended' someone."] Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy From: ljt3@PL122b.lehigh.edu (Lewis) Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy] Re: Lehigh University censors gun postings Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 21:15:42 GMT ======================= Policies on the Use of Computer Systems and Facilities Lehigh University Computing Center August, 1992 OK, they've changed the language since I read it last. 9. The following type of information or software cannot be placed on any university-owned computer system: ~ That which is abusive, profane, or sexually offensive to the average person. They still haven't bothered to define "the average person" Do they mean "The average Lehigh student" or "The average Lehigh employee" or "The average Bethlehem, PA resident" or "The average Pennsylvania resident" or "The average U.S.A. resident" or "The average homo sapiens"? The average is different in every single one of the above cases. In any case, they haven't bothered. (Is there a standard legal definition? Why do I have to know legalese to understand usage guidelines for computers?) ~ That which consists of information which may injure someone else and/or lead to a lawsuit or criminal charges. Examples of these are: pirated software, destructive software, pornographic materials, or libelous statements. "Your honor, that pornographic file there got up and hit me." Is it a criminal offense to allow minors to obtain pornographic material? If not, how can it lead to criminal charges? That's about the only thing I can think of. These days, _anything_ can lead to a lawsuit. Does this mean that I can't keep anything on my account? I bring these up because the only way that I have seen them implemented is to censor things. One person had stored some alt.sex.bondage postings, and was threatened with loss of account (which was needed for classwork). Another for a line in his .signature that 'offended' someone. Where do we draw the line? Lehigh seems to take the position that if _any_ person is bothered, there's a problem with the material. I've even seen it implemented that if there is the _possibility_ of a problem, it's in violation of the policies. -- Lewis Tanzos - ljt3@[cs1.cc/pl122.eecs].lehigh.edu - ljt3@Lehigh.edu "By the common conception, humankind doesn't consider something 'worth it' unless they get their investment back -- preferrably with profit. ...By this criterion, most of the Universe is 'not worth it'" -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 14:23:53 1994 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news From: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Fwd:) Subject: Re: This newsgroup is illegal! Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 18:19:02 GMT [A repost - Carl] [paraphrase: The previously banned "talk.abortion" newsgroup (and several other newsgroups) is now available on some machines at some Irish colleges.] Newsgroups: alt.recovery.catholicism,soc.culture.canada,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk From: smurphy@unix1.tcd.ie (forest) Subject: Re: This newsgroup is illegal! Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 10:39:36 GMT >| } The new newsgroup "alt.recovery.catholicism" is illegal in many >| } countries. Italy, Brazil, Spain, Ireland (Republic), Portugal, and >| } several other predominately Catholic countries have demand its >| } removal. im reading and posting this from an irish college, and i havent heard anything said about this group outside netland either of positive or negative variety. newsgroup censorship in ireland seems to have calmed down considerably over the last sixmonth or so with alt.sex.* groups and talk.abortion, previously blocked, among others now available on certain machines. whether this is a cockup on the colleges part or a change in policy i couldnt say though... just for anyone interested... s -- {@@@} *****************************{@@@@@}************************************* ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::{@&@}:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 16:47:24 1994 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news From: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Fwd:) Subject: Re: NIGGER JOKES Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 20:37:20 GMT [A repost - Carl] [paraphrase: In reply to all those who want the U. of Michigan to punish the student who apparently posted "NIGGER JOKES". 1) He probably didn't post it; more likely he left a terminal unattended 2) As the U. of Michigan has found out in federal court, it is illegal to punish student merely for offensive public expression.] Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless,alt.bbs.internet,alt.beer,alt.binaries.pictures,alt.binaries.pictures.d,alt.binaries.pictures.utilities,alt.binaries.sounds.misc,rec.autos,rec.autos.tech,alt.censorship,alt.com,alt.cuddle,alt.evil,alt.food,alt.games.doom,alt.games.gb From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) Subject: Re: NIGGER JOKES Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 18:58:48 GMT dk@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Gene Skinner) writes: >I hate being a net-pig, but I have already contacted his sysadmin. I don't >think this idiot will log in tomorrow. Poetry like that should be rewarded. [...] 1. As someone said, there is a 99.99% chance that this was posted from an unintended terminal. 2. Two people reposted the whole thing article. Many of us have crossposted to exactly the same newsgroups. If the original post is "illegal", then our replies are just as illegal. 3. It would be illegal for the U. of Michigan to punish one of its student merely for being offensive. They have tried. They were sued in federal district court. They lost. It is a famous case. (see refs.) 4. The way to counter offensive speech is with counter speech, not with calls for university censorship. - Carl ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= law/doe-v-u-of-michigan ================= * Expression -- Hate Speech -- Doe v. U of Michigan This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too broad and too vague. ================= law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ================= * Expression -- Hate Speech -- UWM Post v. U Of Wisconsin The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email. It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed. The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the screening which our Constitution demands." ================= law/uc-riverside ================= Paraphrase of a newspaper report: A fraternity at the U. of California at Riverside was punished for offensive T-shirts. They sued and won reinstatement. University administrators now have to take First Amendment senstivity classes. ================= law/young-conservatives-v-sau ================= * Expression -- Offensive -- Young Conservatives v. SAU A UPI story that tells how Stephen F. Austin University originally banned a group's "sexist" flyers, but when challenged, the ban was lifted and a cash settlement was given to the students whose free-speech was violated by the ban. ================= ================= 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 (192.77.172.4), and then: cd /pub/CAF/law get doe-v-u-of-michigan cd /pub/CAF/law get uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin cd /pub/CAF/law get uc-riverside cd /pub/CAF/law get young-conservatives-v-sau To get the file(s) by email, send email to ftpmail@decwrl.dec.com Include the line(s): connect ftp.eff.org cd /pub/CAF/law get doe-v-u-of-michigan cd /pub/CAF/law get uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin cd /pub/CAF/law get uc-riverside cd /pub/CAF/law get young-conservatives-v-sau -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 16:47:26 1994 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news From: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Fwd:) Subject: [news.admin.policy] Re: [news.admin.policy] Re: Lehigh University censors gun posting Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 20:43:21 GMT [A repost - Carl] [paraphrase: [a Lehigh U. computer administrator] In reply to the policy critique. The policy was created by an advisory committee and approved by the Provost. The U. doesn't believe that strict due process is necessary in this case, but we try to make sure that students have the resources they need for class. The U. has an extensive code of conduct that covers offensive speech and a harassment policy.] Newsgroups: news.admin.policy From: krw1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Kevin Weiner) Subject: Re: [news.admin.policy] Re: Lehigh University censors gun posting Message-ID: <1994Apr6.142559.31708@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 14:25:59 GMT In article , kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) writes: >Summary: This is a critique of Lehigh University's computer policy. >Without reference to any general university policies, it seems to >authorizes punishment without due process and punishment of what (by >academic freedom standards) should be protected speech. It offers come >privacy protection. It does not say how it was created or approved, so >I don't know if the university community participated in its creation >or if it was just imposed by fiat. The policy was recommended by a computing advisory committee whose voting members were faculty and students. It was approved by the Provost, who opted not to forward it for review by counsel. The administration has maintained that unless civil or criminal charges are filed, actions under this policy do not consitiute legal proceedings and are not subject to rigorous application of due process. All efforts are made, however, to assure continuity of access to necessary academic resources as required by the student's curriculum. >> 9. The following type of information or software cannot be >> placed on any university-owned computer system: >> >> ~ That which infringes upon the rights of another >> person. > >This is meaninglessly vague. Actually, it's as specific as the 9th Ammendment. :-) > >> ~ That which is abusive, profane, or sexually >> offensive to the average person. > >Is this consistent with the university-wide rules on free expression >and university facilities? I notice the Lehigh library computer There was no requirement that such consistency be establish, nor any challenge, so the policy stands as approved. Clearly, any policy can be altered, but to date, no formal challenges have been forthcoming. >Maybe Lehigh doesn't subscribe to that notion of academic freedom. >But if it has its own notions, then the computer policy should at >least reference the university-wide speech code (or whatever) that >gives the University's policy on offensive expression. It's the other way around: the university has an extensive code of conduct which subsumes the computing policy. >Writing an anti-harassment policy is hard to do. Rather than create one >just for computers, it would be better to tie into the university-wide >policy. The University Code of Conduct specifically covers harassment. This is is just a contextual elaboration. One aspect of the policy not obvious from its content is that the on-line signup procedure for acquiring a system password requires prospective users to read and agree to abide by the policy. While this may not be legally binding (that has yet to be established), it addresses the issue of ignorance of the policy. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Weiner Lehigh University Computing Center (215) 758-3991 -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 16:58:59 1994 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news From: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Fwd:) Subject: `Serdar Argic': Racist remarks? Defamation? Supply info.... Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 20:57:24 GMT [A repost - Carl] [paraphrase: [an academic at the U. of Warwick (UK)] Please help me compile a dossier on "Serdar Argic". When I document his "spreading of racial slander" I will send the information to the U. of Minnesota in hopes that they will punish him.] From: ceuaz@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Jim Bottomley) Newsgroups: alt.fan.serdar-argic,soc.culture.turkish,alt.usenet.kooks,soc.history,soc.culture.european,news.admin.policy,soc.culture.greek,alt.fan.joel-furr,soc.culture.soviet,alt.revisionism Subject: `Serdar Argic': Racist remarks? Defamation? Supply info.... Date: 6 Apr 1994 19:59:11 +0100 Message-ID: <2nv0pv$ipd@clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Dear hater of `Serdar Argic', I am currently compiling a dossier on the activities of our very good enemy and overall net_pest, the one and only Mr `Serdar Argic', widely reported and frequently confirmed to be the one and only Mr Ahmet Cosar, a Grad student at the University of Minnesota in the United States. The purpose of this dossier is to provide background material for a formal complaint to the authorities of the said University about the activities of this student. As you will know, being a reader of the one or more of the groups that he regularly deluges with his repetitious lies and abuse, he may well be in contravention of regulations at that University concerning the spreading of racial slander, defamatory remarks against individuals on the basis of their race, nationality or ethnic origin. I would love to hear from you if you have been the victim of such attacks, or if you have witnessed such behaviour from Ahmet Cosar. (`Serdar Argic.') If you have, please email me the details along with copies of the original material emanating from `Argic'. Please ensure that any such material is emailed to me in full so that it has it's original posting headers intact. You will be assured of complete confidentiality if you wish it. On the other hand, it would help me greatly if you would allow your name and email address to be included in the formal complaint, which I intend to be forwarded to the Principal or Dean of his University. The complaint will not include any falsehoods: I will post a full copy of it to the above groups for comment and discussion before sending it on the the relavant authorities, so that you can suggest ammendments, add additional material or add or subtract from what you have said at that stage. Thank you for your co-operation in this important matter... -- Jim Bottomley: ceuaz@uk.ac.warwick.csv -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = From caf-talk Caf Apr 8 15:02:40 1994 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news From: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Fwd:) Subject: Indictment of Sysop Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 18:57:57 GMT [A repost - Carl] [paraphrase: "A federal grand jury in Boston returned an indictment this afternoon, charging a 20-year-old MIT student and sysop with conspiracy. The indictment alleges the student, David Lamacchia, created and maintained a BBS/FSP site on the internet, on which pirated software was exchanged."] Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal,alt.wired,alt.2600 From: jgull@world.std.com (jason n gull) Subject: Indictment of Sysop Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 04:09:47 GMT I thought this might be of interest to many. A federal grand jury in Boston returned an indictment this afternoon, charging a 20-year-old MIT student and sysop with conspiracy. The indictment alleges the student, David Lamacchia, created and maintained a BBS/FSP site on the internet, on which pirated software was exchanged. -Jason jgull@world.std.com ====================================================== UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | CRIMINAL NO. 94-10092RGS | VIOLATION: v. | 18 U.S.C. Sect. 371 - | Conspiracy DAVID LAMACCHIA | _INDICTMENT_ _COUNT ONE_: 18 U.S.C. S 371 - Conspiracy The Grand Jury charges that: 1. From on or about November 21, 1993, to on or about January 5, 1994, at Cambridge, in the District of Massachusetts, and elsewhere, DAVID LAMACCHIA defendant herein, did knowingly and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with other persons unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit offenses against the United States, that is, to devise and execute a scheme and artifice to defraud, and, for the purpose of. executing and attempting to execute such scheme, to transmit and cause to be transmitted in interstate commerce, by wire communication, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 1343. _PERSONS AND ENTITIES_ 2. At all times material to this Indictment, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) was an educational institution located on Memorial Drive, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 3. At all times material to this Indictment, defendant DAVID LAMACCHIA was a student enrolled in and resident at MIT. 4. At all times material to this Indictment, MIT had a connection to the Internet, an international collection of electronic networks linking educational, military, and commercial computers around the world. _CONSPIRACY AND SCHEME TO DEFRAUD_ 5. It was part of the scheme and conspiracy that defendant DAVID LAMACCHIA, using the computer aliases "JOHN GAUNT" and "GRIMJACK," set up, participated in setting up, and, from on or about November 21, 1993, to on or about December 21, 1993, and from on or about January 3, 1994 to on or about January 5, 1994, operated and participated in the operation of a computer bulletin board system named "CYNOSURE" to permit and facilitate, on an international scale, the illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted software, without payment of software licensing fees or the software purchase price to the manufacturers and vendors of the copyrighted software 6. It was further part of the conspiracy and scheme to defraud that defendant DAVID LAMACCHIA operated, and participated in the operation of, "CYNOSURE" on two computer work stations owned and operated by MIT, located at Cambridge in the District of Massachusetts. The two work stations were designated "CYNOSURE I" and "CYNOSURE II." In addition, a third MIT computer was utilized for back-up files and other purposes associated with running CYNOSURE. 7. A computer bulletin board system ("BBS") consists essentially of a personal computer on which is installed a computer program which permits persons all over the world, using their own computers and telephone lines, to obtain access to the BBS computer. Persons thereby obtaining access to the computer BBS may post files and messages to the board ("upload"), and may read and copy files and messages ("download") to their own computer. The messages that may be uploaded or downloaded can consist of virtually any type of data or information, including other software programs. The CYNOSURE BBS was accessible worldwide via the Internet. 8. In using the MIT work stations for the purpose of running a computer BBS to pirate and distribute copyrighted software, LAMACCHIA exceeded his authority, as an MIT student, to access and use the MIT computer system and its connection to the Internet. 9. It was further part of the conspiracy and scheme to defraud that the defendant, using the computer aliases "JOHN GAUNT" and "GRIMJACK," communicated to other persons the Internet address (or "site") for the CYNOSURE BBS to permit them to send, by means of interstate and foreign wire communication, files and messages to the BBS and to avail themselves of the opportunity to copy and cause to be transmitted by means of interstate and foreign wire communication, computer files stored on the BBS. The users of the CYNOSURE BBS often hid their identities by using an Internet address located in Finland which afforded an anonymous forwarding service. 10. It was further part of the conspiracy and scheme for users to "upload" computer files into the CYNOSURE BBS in order to create a library of software that could be accessible to other users who, without paying a purchase price or licensing fee, could unlawfully download copyrighted software to their own computer systems. Files downloaded to an anonymous Finnish Internet address service would then be surreptitiously forwarded to the user's own computer system. 11. It was further part of the conspiracy and scheme to defraud to circulate the CYNOSURE BBS address to a trusted network of computer users in order to protect the BBS from detection, and to communicate with BBS users by posting "README" files on the BBS. In these communications, which users would access through interstate telephone communication between their computers and the MIT server upon which the CYNOSURE BBS was resident, the defendant: advised users to check the CYNOSURE I index before uploading files so as not to duplicate existing files; requested particular copyrighted software; and cautioned against over-publication of the Internet site address for the bulletin board in order to reduce the risk of detection by the "net.cops," i.e., systems administrators and network security personnel. 12. In fact, however, as defendant knew, the site address for the CYNOSURE BBS was disseminated widely and indiscriminately over public electronic networks, and as defendant knew or reasonably could have foreseen, traffic into and out of the CYNOSURE BBS for the purpose of unlawfully copying copyrighted software quickly became enormous. For example, approximately 180 computers contacted the BBS over a single 16-hour period of time it was in operation, downloading hundreds of computer software files containing copyrighted commercial programs during that same period. 13. As a result of the conspiracy and scheme to defraud, losses from the illegal distribution of the pirated software are estimated to exceed one million dollars during the period the CYNOSURE BBS was in operation. 14. On or about November 24, 1993, at Cambridge, in the District of Massachusetts, defendant DAVID LAMACCHIA created a "README" file on the CYNOSURE BBS which stated, Welcome to the Cynosure FSP site. The site currently has about 150 megs of space, so go ahead and upload. Let's get this site going! New files should be uploaded in a new directory under /dos/files. -- GrimJack, your sysop. 15. On or about December 4, 1993, at Cambridge, in the District of Massachusetts, defendant DAVID LAMACCHIA created, and participated in creating, a "README" file on the CYNOSURE BBS which stated, Welcome to the Cynosure I FSP site. This site has a total of 193 megs of space. This is a download-only site. If you want to upload (please do!) on Cynosure II at 18.187.0.75 port 2433. -- gJ (a.k.a. Gaunt, Mongoose Maintainers "FSP" refers to "file service protocol." It is used to facilitate a large volume of file activity without causing the system to "crash." 16. On or about December 9, 1993, at Cambridge, in the District of Massachusetts, defendant DAVID LAMACCHIA created a "README" file on the CYNOSURE BBS which stated: "Use this directory for sending private pgp-encoded messages to other users. -- John Gaunt" 17. On or about December 14, 1993, at Cambridge, in the District of Massachusetts, defendant DAVID LAMACCHIA created a file on the CYNOSURE BBS called "reqs.from.gaunt" which stated: If anyone has this stuff, I'd appreciate it. Sim City 2000 Excel 5.0 (Windoze) WordPerfect 6.0 (Windoze) And if you run a site, drop me a line in the to_sysop directory. I'm also interested in cool sites people use, trading other info, etc. Thanks . . . -- John Gaunt, sysop. 18. On or about December 21, 1993, at Cambridge, in the District of Massachusetts, defendant DAVID LAMACCHIA created a "README" file on the CYNOSURE BBS which stated, Cynosure II is currently acting as the upload site, and we're periodically moving stuff to Cynosure I and deleting old stuff there. Before you upload, make sure you're not putting something up that's already on Cynosure I. Check there at 18.187.0.76 port 2433 to make sure, or look at the Cynosure I index for a possibly-out-of-date version. ***URGENT*** This is the second time I've caught some luser publicizing the site address on #fsp over IRC. And since I don't use it that much, I don't even want to think about how much of this goes on. Think you guys: this is what leads to a site getting purged, especially when you go around spitting out site address to whomever (especially since I was warned that two of those online at the time might have been net.cops). If you're tempted to give out the site: DON'T DO IT. If this keeps happening that two things will happen (1) this site will close and (2) its new incarnation will be private. So think about it, ok? ***Flame off Writing is back on for the meantime. It will probably go off sometime tonight, since I'll be out of town. I "may" put it back on while I'm gone . . . I'll see how things work out. -- John Gaunt Mongoose Maintainers. "IRC" refers to the Internet Relay Chat, which functions like an electronic CB radio over the Internet, permitting numerous users to "listen in" to a "channel" simultaneously. 19. On or about January 4, 1994, at Cambridge, in the District of Massachusetts, defendant DAVID LAMACCHIA and others whom he aided and abetted rebooted the CYNOSURE BBS, i.e., reloaded the bulletin board software, to permit access over the Internet. 20. On or about January 4, 1994, at Cambridge, in the District of Massachusetts, defendant DAVID LAMACCHIA created and participated in creating a file on the CYNOSURE BBS, stating: Welcome to Cynosure I. Cynosure II is currently down. Cynosure I is temporarily up. CYNOSURE IS MOVING!!! Read on. . . . Well, if you've waited this long we thank you for being a dedicated user throughout our hiatus. While we were gone the site was wiped clean. Everything on this machine and all our off-line backups was lost. This is disappointing. While it may not be the result of being found by the net.cops, I still believe the site was too public. Lusers were distributing the address freely over IRC and to people they didn't trust. Usually, the result of this for a site is for that site to move and go private, so it doesn't happen again. I'm going to try something else. Cynosure is one of the last public sites, so I'm going to keep it that way: if we're forced to go down again because of lamers, I will probably have to go private. So, hopefully, with controlled distribution of the new address, this won't happen. The move will happen soon. Distribution of the new address will be limited at first, unlike last time. Mongoose and I are currently hacking a new loction that will (1) be more secure and (2) handle a lot of the problems the site currently has (if you don't know about it, don't worry). Anyway, thanks again for sticking with us. Again, I'm only leaving Cynosure I up while we move. It's better than nothing. See you all on the net. -- John Gaunt Mongoose Maintainers All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. A TRUE BILL _xxxxxsignedxxxxx_ Foreman of the Grand Jury Jeanne Kempthorne [signed] Assistant United States Attorney DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS; April 7, 1994, at 4:01 p.m. Returned into the District Court by the Grand Jurors and filed. _xxxxxsignedxxxxx_ Deputy Clerk -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = From caf-talk Caf Apr 8 15:02:43 1994 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news From: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Fwd:) Subject: Re: Indictment of Sysop Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 18:59:09 GMT [A repost - Carl] [paraphrase: "This is the 'Response of Defense Counsel to the United States Attorney's Indictment of David LaMacchia'"] Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal,alt.wired,alt.2600 From: jgull@world.std.com (jason n gull) Subject: Re: Indictment of Sysop Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 04:24:18 GMT Response of Defense Counsel to the United States Attorney's Indictment of David LaMacchia Sadly, the United States Attorney for Massachusetts has chosen to conduct a test case by inappropriately using his power to prosecute criminal cases. He and his staff are trying to brand as a criminal, a computer systems operator (a so-called "SYSOP" in computer jargon) for what other people place on, and take off of, a computer system that the SYSOP creates and maintains but does not control. It is not at all clear that a SYSOP commits any crime in such a situation. The guinea pig chosen by the U. S. Attorney is a 20-year-old student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, David LaMacchia. This prosecution presumably will decide whether current criminal law would penalize a SYSOP who neither controls what is placed on the system nor profits one cent from any copyrighted software that others upload to and download from the system that he and others create and operate. If the government wishes to outlaw the activities in which David LaMacchia is alleged to have engaged, it should ask Congress to pass a statute clearly making such conduct criminal. We frankly believe that the Department of Justice would have trouble convincing Congress to do so because of the troubling statutory, constitutional, and policy problems involved. So, instead, the U. S. Attorney will use this to try to convince the federal courts to agree to make David LaMacchia into a felon by stretching and mangling the meanings of certain existing criminal laws. David LaMacchia's conduct was not in violation of the criminal law, and we are confident that the courts will agree with us. It is unfortunate that this young man -- among the best and the brightest that our society produces -- will have to suffer while this process goes forward. Given the explosion of violent crime and other criminal pathologies in our society, one would think that the U. S. Attorney's staff of lawyers and FBI agents would have better things to do with their time and the taxpayers' money than to imitate the fish species known as guppies, which devour their own young. We and our client hope to have much more to say about this case and its implications at that point in time when we are able to say more. Meanwhile, we ask that David LaMacchia be accorded the presumption of innocence to which our Constitution and laws entitle him. We ask that all citizens concerned with liberty and fair play follow this case closely and then, at the end, ask some hard questions about the motives and judgment of the prosecutors who have brought this prosecution. * * * * * Harvey A. Silverglate Silverglate & Good 89 Broad Street, 14th flr Boston, MA 02110-3511 Tel (617) 542-6663 Fax (617) 451-6971 Internet:has@world.std.com David Duncan Zalkind, Rodriguez, Lunt & Duncan 65A Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02110 Tel (617) 742-6020 Fax (617) 742-3269 Counsel for David LaMacchia Dated: April 7, 1994 # # # # # -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = From caf-talk Caf Apr 10 18:14:08 1994 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news From: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Fwd:) Subject: Re: Lehigh University censors gun postings Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Apr 1994 22:09:52 GMT [A repost - Carl] [parahrase: "A private university (Lehigh U.) doesn't have the resources to provide all Netnews (aka Usenet) newsgroups. So, it decides to carry all (and only) "Big-7" newsgroups and no "alt.*" newsgroups. It will make an exception only if a professor requests a "alt.* newsgroup" for academic reasons. Is this selection policy consistent with intellectual freedom principles (as developed for libraries)?"] From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: Re: Lehigh University censors gun postings Date: 9 Apr 1994 12:55:27 -0400 Message-ID: <2o6mlv$38p@eff.org> Here is a copy of an article I've just posted to the library intellectual freedom mailing list: alaoif (American Library Assocation Office of Intellectual Freedom) Email to "listserv@uicvm.uic.edu" with line "sub alaoif " ============================== Subject: A legitimate Netnews selection policy Summary: A private university (Lehigh U.) doesn't have the resources to provide all Netnews (aka Usenet) newsgroups. So, it decides to carry all (and only) "Big-7" newsgroups and no "alt.*" newsgroups. It will make an exception only if a professor requests a "alt.* newsgroup" for academic reasons. Is this selection policy consistent with intellectual freedom principles (as developed for libraries)? Background: Netnews is a computer-communications medium. It is like electronic mailing lists where each mailing list corresponds to a "newsgroup". It differs from electronic mailing lists in that computer sites, not individual users, decide which newsgroups to subscribe to. Although most newsgroups are available for free, storing them and managing them costs time and resources. There are probably more than 10,000 Netnews newsgroups available, most sites will subscribe to no more than 1000 or so. Newsgroups are named hierarchically. For example, "rec.humor.funny" is recreational, deals with humor, and tries to be funny (by having an editor who only selects the best jokes submitted.) Another "rec.humor" newsgroup is "rec.humor.d", an unedited discussion of humor. Another "rec" newsgroup is "rec.sport.football.canadian". In addition to the "rec" top-level hierarchy, the other top-level hierachies of the "Big-7" are "soc" (society), "sci" (science), "comp" (computers), "talk" (discussion), "news" (netnews), and "misc" (miscellaneous). There are many non Big-7 top-level hierarchies. For example "uiuc" is for newsgroups about the Univesity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "ba" is for newsgroups about the bay area. What makes the Big-7 hierarchies different from other top-level hierarchies is the way that new newsgroups are added to it. To create a new Big-7 newsgroup, one must post call for discussion in newgroup "news.groups". After one month, you can call for a vote. After one more month, if 100 more people voted "yes" than voted "no", this result is announced and many sites will carry the new newsgroup (although no site is required to carry any newsgroup). One of the most popular top-level hierarchies is not in the Big-7. It is the "alt" hierarchy. Here is its history, according to a 1992 Netnews article by Chris Lewis: (excerpt from ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/news/cafv02n11) =========================================================== Earlier, back in the days of the "Great Renaming" [the creation of the Big-7 -cmk], the people trying to come up with the repartitioning of the "mod." and "net." groups into the "big seven" hierarchies of today had a problem figuring out how to place "news.flame" and "net.bizarre" and probably a few others. They were considered to be just plain garbage, and many hoped that they would simply disappear. Lots of grumbling and some screaming, with the group designing the partition refusing to place these groups. Then a few people started complaining about how onerous the new newsgroup voting procedures were going to be, and they decided to create their own playpen to mess up as they please. A mess it certainly is. The drugs group is a special case. Too many SA's stood up and said that they wouldn't carry it under any name, no matter what a vote said. Though I think it predates the current voting procedure. Ditto, more or less, alt.sex. Other major kafuffles, eg: comp.protocols.tcp.pc.eniac (or whatever it was) or sci.aquaria generated much heat, but had relatively little long-term effect. (Other than you don't see their proponents around that much anymore.) It was a long time ago. I've blissfully forgotten most of the details. The prevalence of such groups as "censorship", "civil-liberty", "acad-freedom" and the like in alt is because the people who tend to want to create such groups think that having to vote for a news group is fascist. ============================================= Here is an analogy to tradional librarianship: Suppose a small library feels it doesn't have time to look all possible magazines (or even to consider requests from patrons). Instead it decides to join a subscription service. This subscription service will tend to give it a broad selection of magazines, but not magazines from independent publishers. In defense of this policy, it is a very efficient way to select generally high-quality newsgroups and some of the newsgroups selected are still controversial (e.g. rec.arts.erotica, talk.politics.drugs). In criticism of the policy, it is heavily weighted against controversial newsgroups (like alt.sex, alt.drugs, alt.censorship). To the readers of the ALAOIF list: Do you think that this selection policy is consistent with the principles of intellectual freedom (as developed by libraries). - Carl Encl: two articles from news.admin.policy. ====================================================== From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 16:18:45 1994 Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) Subject: Re: Lehigh University censors gun postings Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 20:07:22 GMT krw1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Kevin Weiner) writes: [...] >Alt groups were specifically addressed: in that they are by >definition not sanctioned by the usenet community at large, they >would not be carried. This was a simple and perfectly reasonable >evaluation criterion. The policy did allow individual Alt groups to >be requested by faculty for use in courses. [...] So you carry "rec.sport.football.canadian", but even if a student asks for it, you will not carry "alt.censorship" or "alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk"? I don't find your selection policy "perfectly reasonable". It lacks diversity by excluding controversial newsgroups. - Carl ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= library/selection-workbook.ala ================= * Selection Policy Writing Workbook (ALA) The American Library Association's "Workbook on Selection Policy Writing". Although aimed at textbook and library book selection in grade and high schools, it also seems applicable to newsgroup selection. It includes information about how create a selection policy and how to handle complaints. It also includes a sample selection policy. ================= library/diversity.ala ================= * Diversity in Collection Development (ALA) An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library Bill of Rights" It says that collections should be inclusive, not exclusive. And that materials should cover the needs and interest of all patrons. "This includes materials that reflect political, economic, religious, social, minority, and sexual issues." ================= ================= 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 (192.77.172.4), and then: cd /pub/CAF/library get selection-workbook.ala cd /pub/CAF/library get diversity.ala To get the file(s) by email, send email to ftpmail@decwrl.dec.com Include the line(s): connect ftp.eff.org cd /pub/CAF/library get selection-workbook.ala cd /pub/CAF/library get diversity.ala -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ======================= From caf-talk Caf Apr 6 23:16:01 1994 Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: krw1@Lehigh.EDU (Kevin Weiner) Subject: Re: Lehigh University censors gun postings Message-ID: <1994Apr7.024420.47217@Lehigh.EDU> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 02:44:20 GMT In article , kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) writes: > >So you carry "rec.sport.football.canadian", but even if a student asks >for it, you will not carry "alt.censorship" or >"alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk"? I don't find your selection policy >"perfectly reasonable". > >It lacks diversity by excluding controversial newsgroups. We do not feel that it is appropriate to selectively filter individual news groups. It was either all or nothing with respect to the main hierarchies - anything else *was* considered censorship. The standard groups represented consensus and a stable base of information. The Alt groups represented chaos and potentially unbounded growth in resource demands. We provide all the resources we feel can be practically managed and make no apologies. This is especially true given that the resources in question are freely available to students via the internet. Any library model is invalid in this context as physical proximity to information has become mostly irrelevant. A more reasonable question now is not whether Alt groups will be added, but when will we have to start dumping other groups. We have already run into a situation this semester where a backlog of 180,000 mssages had to be discarded before they could be read just to keep from getting further behind. Lack of diversity is the least of our worries. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Weiner Lehigh University Computing Center (215) 758-3991 -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =