From caf-talk Caf Apr 19 21:31:26 1994 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news From: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Fwd:) Subject: Censorship of some newsgroups at my school - what can I do? Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 01:24:42 GMT [A repost - Carl] [paraphrase: A number of newsgroups have been yanked at East Stroudsburg University, a public university in Pennsylvania, by the university's president on the grounds that they are offensive to some.] From: kender@esu.edu (Daniel Garcia) Newsgroups: alt.censorship Subject: Censorship of some newsgroups at my school - what can I do? Date: 19 Apr 1994 20:14:18 -0400 Message-ID: <2p1s4q$mcb@marx.esu.edu> Hello, We have an interesting situation at my school. It seems that a number of newsgroups, most notably, the alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.* were yanked, because the president of a college that gets its newsfeed from us complained to the president of our college, who demanded to our Net.Admin that the newsgroups be revoked. This has sparked an interesting discussion on our local newsgroups. The basic reason, it seems that those groups were removed, is because someone found them offensive. Now, I personally have no particular interest in these groups, and really don't care that they are no longer there. However, I am concered about the fact that they were removed because someone 'found them offensive'. Is this appropriate justification for removing newsgroups? What's to keep someone from coming along and saying that 'I find alt.censorship offensive', or 'I find alt.fan.[whoever] offensive' and getting those newsgroups yanked. Is there any kind of precedant where a school yanked newsgroups on these grounds, and then had to put them back? Basically, I am looking for information about where this has happened before, to pass on to my local newsgroups, so that the students can see what's happened at other schools. EMail responses preferred, thanks! D -- -----------.,------Coming-soon-to-a-PhD-Program-near-you-----.,--Carpe-Diem--- Ethernet is||Daniel Garcia - ATP Group - LLNL Gigabit Testbed||WillHackPerl/Tc for Sissies|| Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Labs - Livermore, CA ||l/Tk/Expect/Uni Disclaimer.||dgarcia@cohl.llnl.gov <=-email-=> kender@esu.edu||x/C/C++ForFood, Try Linux || This .sig file (c)1994 by Daniel Garcia ||Money&Computers ----hi-----'`-PGP-key-available-finger-dgarcia@cohl.llnl.gov-'`---Coram-Deo--- Fibre Channel - Unix - TCP/IP - Music - MIDI - Biking - Networking - Reading ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 17:31:56 1994 From: kadie@eff.org (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news Subject: [at.kultur, et al.] Info ueber gesperrte Gruppen an der UNI-Wien Date: 24 Apr 1994 17:31:54 -0400 Message-ID: <2peoga$poa@eff.org> [A repost - Carl] [Summary: I think alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless, alt.sex.bestiality, and alt.sex.pictures have been banned from the Vienna (Austria) University Computer Center. [article is in German]] From: gw@phoenix (Gerhard Winkler) Newsgroups: at.kultur,soc.culture.austria,at.news,at.general Subject: Info ueber gesperrte Gruppen an der UNI-Wien Date: 21 Apr 1994 08:22:31 GMT Message-ID: <2p5d47$2d7@infosrv.edvz.univie.ac.at> Zur Information ueber die Sperre einiger Newsgroups am News-Server der UNI-Wien: In der 4. ordentlichen Senatssitzung vom 17. Maerz 1994 hat der akademische Senat beschlossen: VIII/6. Arbeitskreis fuer Gleichbehandlungsfragen; pornographisches Bildmaterial in EDV-Netzwerken GZ.129-1990/91 Nach eingehender Diskussion, in der Rastl insbesonders darauf hinweist, dass derzeit noch kein flaechendeckender Ueberblick ueber die Problematik besteht und das EDV-Zentrum sich nicht als Zensurbehoerde verstehen kann, fasst der Akademische Senat folgende Beschluesse einstimmig: 1. Das EDV-Zentrum wird beauftragt, den Zugang zu pornographischen Bildmaterial fuer Universitaetsangehoerige zu verhindern. 2. Es wird eine Arbeitsgruppe zur Auseinandersetzung mit dem Problem des pornographischen Bildmaterials, aber auch von Neonazi-Material in den EDV-Netzwerken eingesetzt. ..... ===== Der Arbeitskreis fuer Gleichbehandlungsfragen der Universitaet Wien hat diesbezueglich am 25. Jaenner 1994 einen Antrag an den Rektor der Universitaet Wien gestellt, dass der Akademische Senat das EDV-Zentrum beauftragt folgende Newsgruppen und Untergruppen zu loeschen und nicht mehr einzuspielen: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica alt.ninaries.pictures.tasteless alt.sex.bestiality alt.sex.pictures ===== Hieraus ist ersichtlich, dass diese Entscheidung nicht aufgrund irgendwelcher Artikel in den Medien gefaellt wurde. Die Sperre betrifft also nur den Server der UNI-Wien. Das Weiterleiten an andere Universitaeten ist davon nicht betroffen, da sich die UNI-Wien nicht als Zensurbehoerde fuer andere Universitaeten verstehen kann. Ich hoffe damit einige Unklarheiten ueber die Vorgangsweise beseitigt zu haben, mfG Gerhard Winkler -- Gerhard Winkler | E-Mail: gerhard.winkler@cc.univie.ac.at Vienna University Computer Center | Universitaetsstrasse 7 | Tel: +43 1 406-58-22 x273 Fax x170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria | ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 17:38:24 1994 From: kadie@eff.org (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Threats from Daniel J. Karnes Date: 24 Apr 1994 17:38:22 -0400 Message-ID: <2peose$ptb@eff.org> [A repost - Carl] [paraphrase: [The editor of the net.legends FAQ file, a user at U. of Tennessee Knoxville] Daneil J. Karnes, one of the subjects of my FAQ, threatens legal action if I don't change what I say about him. I think his threats are baseless.] From: David.Delaney@inns.omahug.org (David Delaney) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Threats from Daniel J. Karnes Message-ID: <68.2db52560@axolotl> Date: 20 Apr 94 07:00:14 CST Xref: ivgate news.admin.misc:3285 news.admin.policy:5773 comp.org.eff.talk:21431 misc.legal:15841 soc.motss:14177 comp.admin.policy:1252 Path: ivgate!planet!isdnlin.mtsu.edu!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!e uropa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!cs.utk.edu!martha.utcc.utk.edu!martha .utcc.utk.edu!dbd From: dbd@martha.utcc.utk.edu (David DeLaney) Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal,so c.motss,alt.usenet.kooks,comp.admin.policy Subject: Re: Threats from Daniel J. Karnes Message-ID: <1994Apr14.012313.23699@martha.utcc.utk.edu> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 01:23:13 GMT References: <1994Apr12.171455.11977@martha.utcc.utk.edu> <1994Apr14.005829.19568@martha.utcc.utk.edu> Sender: usenet@martha.utcc.utk.edu (USENET News System) Followup-To: news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk Organization: U. Tenn. Knoxville/Physics Dept. Lines: 202 I sent the following email reply to Daniel J. Karnes this evening (cc:ing the people he cc:ed, myself, an additional UTCC person, and root@netcom.com separately [because I forgot to put them on the cc: list initially, and sent them a copy of his threatening email (see last post) as well]), as soon as I read the email from him and composed the reply. I am crossposting to several groups that may be interested (and adding a spoiler for soc.motss folk who wish to not read about djk), and following up to a smaller selection of newsgroups so as not to spam the net (I'm leaving in news.admin.misc because that's where this started, as much as anywhere). The reasons for the mixed crosspost will become clear upon reading this response and the original letter (posted just previously). Kim Snyder is one of the UT Computing Center administrators, by the way. Hello, Daniel. I am pleased that you have *finally* written to me; however, I must take great exception to many of the things you say in your letter. Note please that I am cc:ing this to snyder and to delaney (no relation - Bruce Delaney, working at UTCompCenter) and myself. I will also be posting, unaltered, with approximately the same comments on the bottom, your letter to me, as it contains specific legal threats, on news.admin.policy, misc.legal, and comp.org.eff.talk; you may watch for it there as well. To start with, I highly doubt that you are sorry at all - but I have no particular method of proving this, so will pass on. You have had a "lack of response" from me because you have never *contacted* me before: you have posted once (in ... february? or so) to alt.folklore.computers on this subject, at which time I corrected factual errors you pointed out, and have recently sent (as far as I can tell) two or three emails to UTCC. This letter, dated Wed 13 Apr 1994 08:48:37 -0700 (PDT), is the *first* communication from you I have received. I am responding as soon as I can: I left the office at 7:30AM, went home and slept, and got back here at 6:30 PM. Second para: "good fun" is not exactly the intent; the purpose of the FAQ is to provide profiles on those individuals famous or infamous in several newsgroups, and about whom people are likely to ask "Who *is* this person? And why do you all seem to know things about them? Does this person have some history or something? Are there things I might like to know about them before I respond to them?". Third para: Anyone taking this list to be gospel truth has clearly not read it; there's about four paragraphs of disclaimer at the top specifically stating that *all* we can determine about the people listed generally comes from what they post on the net; your description comes from your habits and style of posting (if you put *half* as much effort into writing well and making good arguments on UseNet, where "your words are your face", as you did in the entry you provided and the email you have finally sent, you would be neither infamous, widely killfiled, nor widely ridiculed in the manner you are at present). Judging from your recent string of posts on news.admin.*, you are still employing this same style, Path: cs.uiuc.edu!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ivgate!axolotl!inns!David.Delaney From: David.Delaney@inns.omahug.org (David Delaney) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: 02/Re: Threats from Daniel J. Karnes Message-ID: <72.2db52564@axolotl> Date: 20 Apr 94 07:01:14 CST Reply-To: david.delaney@inns.omahug.org Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE Sender: news@axolotl.omahug.org (UUscan 1.10) Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk Lines: 60 so I have no reason to think your description should change. There is also a paragraph at the bottom, which you have ignored, stating that martha has nothing to do with this and spelling out who to contact (which you have not done correctly). Fourth para: first, it's "DeLaney". I spell *your* name right, and if you're going to make legal threats, you need to spell *mine* right or they'll say "Who's this Delaney person?". Second: written statements *cannot* be slanderous; slander is spoken, and up until yesterday I had never exchanged spoken words about you with *anyone* (I talked to Kim Snyder yesterday and explained some of who you were; you may or may not choose to call that libel, I suppose, because you have absolutely no idea what I said to her). Thirdly: libel must be both false and malicious. The things I have written *are not false*: read the entry (I can email you a copy should you wish, or you can get it yourself). They are not written in a spirit of malice either; I know this cannot be proven - you may have to actually take my word for it. I am not "making every attempt to defame" you (I'll ignore the repeated "slander", which is inappropriate), and am *certainly* not doing it to make you look doddering or stupid. If that were my aim, I could have simply written the entry in your customary posting style (which may in fact be the best thing to do if I totally rewrite this; you *cannot* complain if I am simply imitating your style instead of using my own, or if I simply include some representative postings of yours as the sum total of your entry); instead, I was careful to stick to the facts as seen on UseNet, and not to single you out through a severe difference in writing style or any such object. I even make available, *in the exact same location*, your idea of how you thought your entry should look (which unfortunately gives little knowledge to those reading it as to *why* you are widely known on UseNet...). It is quite true that I am not being totally objective in my profile; as I stated, I can only work with the face you show to the world. Only *you* can be totally objective, as only you know all the facts, and *from the posts I have seen*, you are not at all interested in being totally objective yourself; therefore I find this accusation of yours to be specious and utterly without merit. I make *no* statements that are totally untrue; and I am trying very hard not to make statements that are even *partially* untrue. If you cannot provide specifics of *which* statements you think are untrue, and *why* they are untrue (and so far you have not done either one), then I cannot change things. For instance, if I had said "Dan Karnes is Artimus Page", that might or might not be true; you have stated it's false in the past. What I actually wrote was "One of his aliases may be Artimus Page, [description of Artimus] [yes, Artimus' address was bogus; it bounced higher than a rubber check when replied to - I tried, and got this result], [who] seems to come and go at the same times... many people argue against this [and I give reasons]". This is all perfectly true: it's possible you're not Artimus, but firm evidence to this effect has never shown up as far as anyone I've talked to (outside of you yourself) can tell. And I must say that my profile of you *cannot* be damaging to your good name in the least, for the excellent reason that you yourself have tarnished that good name by your own words and actions to the point that what I have written puts you in a *better* light than anyone who has encountered you on UseNet is usually willing to concede to you. If I were you, I'd *want* people to read this FAQ entry before encountering your posts; that way they might have some motivation not to killfile you nearly immediately. Fifth para: Starts off with a blatant lie. You have written *no* previous letters to me; this is the first communication directly from you I have ever received. I responded to a post of yours a few months earlier, which was not directed at me, but was posted to the general public on Path: cs.uiuc.edu!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ivgate!axolotl!inns!David.Delaney From: David.Delaney@inns.omahug.org (David Delaney) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: 03/Re: Threats from Daniel J. Karnes Message-ID: <75.2db52567@axolotl> Date: 20 Apr 94 07:02:14 CST Reply-To: david.delaney@inns.omahug.org Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE Sender: news@axolotl.omahug.org (UUscan 1.10) Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk Lines: 62 alt.folklore.computers . I did not "laugh off and ignore" said letters, because they never existed; if you *had* written to me and attempted to explain what you felt was wrong with your entry, I would have attempted to come up with a viable compromise - you may ask Lewis Stiller about this - his entry is now approximately half his own words. And again, this isn't a "slander" list; slander is spoken. Unless you've been reading this aloud to yourself, it doesn't apply. Finally, you contacted Ms. Snyder, possibly over the weekend; she sent me email Monday, and I attempted to get in touch with her but she had left for the afternoon. I talked to her Tuesday afternoon; we hashed things out and, among other things, agreed that she would refer further communications from you to myself first, as at that point I *still* had never been contacted by you about this matter, and she apparently felt I should be given *some* chance to deal with you directly. You may not have been *notified* of this before you sent your threatening letter, but rest assured that she was not "not doing a thing about this". Sixth para: Sorry, Dan, you are in the list precisely because your distinctive posting style and name are known very well on several newsgroups: soc.motss, alt.politics.homosexuality (where your posts are generally on-topic, as much as anything can be there), and recently news.admin.misc with your posts about "filth" and pornography there. Your name may not be removed, because your name is one of those 25 or 30 most well-known names on UseNet, which is what this is a list of; removing it would be like attempting to remove the word "cat" from a list of common domestic animals - wrong and misleading. I am attempting to maintain a *complete* list of people who are widely known on UseNet (I will not use "famous" or "infamous" here, as either could have the wrong connotations), and you are one of them, and cannot deny this. Also, the utk computers you are referencing, on which the FAQ is (I notice you have not *read* the FAQ, as this is the only site you mention; apparently you are getting your information solely from my .signature - could it be that it keeps turning up in your grep script?), are not part of the UTCC, to whom you are complaining; the administration of "martha.utcc.utk.edu" and of "enigma.phys.utk.edu" are two disjoint sets, and are connected only by being in different departments at the same University. Please cease your harrassment of UTCC immediately, and withdraw your threats to them and to me connected with my posting through them, and cease your attempts to have my postings from martha censored. I have never posted a version of the FAQ, that I recall, that had your name in it, from *anywhere* (the last time *I* posted it it was much smaller and had neither you nor Lewis Stiller in it; you were added because of a comment, reproduced in the FAQ, which reminded me that you should by rights be included, and you were not relegated to the Lesser Lights section because you have a widespread reputation). I have heard that Jorn Barger has reposted this document on alt.usenet.kooks once or twice; I cannot say if this is true or not, because I do not *get* that newsgroup at the site I read News from, and I am not connected with his decision to do so. You may go and bother him about it if you wish; leave me strictly out of it. I am not going to bring up at this juncture the accusations against you on other grounds that are going on on news.admin.misc; people interested in them can read them for themselves. People interested in seeing just who you are or what your posting style is can *also* go over to news.admin.misc, or alt.politics.homosexuality, and read any of your postings there, and form their *own* opinions; it's my *personal* opinion that their opinions from doing that will not be as good as the opinions they would get from reading only the FAQ without having actually encountered a series of your posts. Seventh para: Your "24 hours" threat means little; I did not receive your letter until (apparently) 10 hours after you mailed it. If I had decided Path: cs.uiuc.edu!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ivgate!axolotl!inns!David.Delaney From: David.Delaney@inns.omahug.org (David Delaney) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: 04/Re: Threats from Daniel J. Karnes Message-ID: <79.2db5256b@axolotl> Date: 20 Apr 94 07:03:14 CST Reply-To: david.delaney@inns.omahug.org Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE Sender: news@axolotl.omahug.org (UUscan 1.10) Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk Lines: 32 not to come into work tonight, your "deadline" would have passed and you would have been made to look foolish. Again, this is not a "slander" list; if you are making legal threats it's a good idea to use the correct wording in doing so. You may contact UTK administration if you wish; you may *also* rest assured that they are already aware of you and your email, and that sending multiple threats will not get you anything in particular that simply notifying them would not have gotten. You may also if you wish retain your lawyers and attempt to file suit against UTK; I think you will find (and I am crossposting, when I post this, to comp.org.eff.* to get expert opinions on this from Carl Kadie and the Academic Freedom Organization) that since UTK is a public school and is run entirely on funds from the Tennessee Legislature that they may *not* censor email, read email, or attempt to censor an employee's speech or writings because to do so would violate Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, and that thus you may not bring suit against them for failing to do something that by law they are not allowed to do in the first place (or that, if you do, you will get it thrown out of court quickly and may very well have to pay court costs for having done so). You may if you wish bring suit against me *directly*; be advised that the ACLU will be *very* interested in such a case. And once again, "slander" is quite inappropriate. Eighth para: And I still do not believe you are at all sorry about this, given the overall tone of the one letter I have received from you. David DeLaney, ending at 8PM EST, April 13th, 1994. -- David DeLaney: dbd@utkux.utcc.utk.edu; WARNING: DO NOT PUT BEANS IN YOUR EARS! Disclaimer: UTK agree with me? Yeah, right...; Thinking about this disclaimer__ may cause offense, brain seizure, confusion, or particle physics. VRbeableDJK\/ http://enigma.phys.utk.edu/~dbd for the net.legends FAQ + miniFAQs, or anon-ftp ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 17:42:44 1994 From: kadie@eff.org (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news Subject: Re: Swinburne U. of Technology (Australia) computer policy Date: 24 Apr 1994 17:42:42 -0400 Message-ID: <2pep4i$q0f@eff.org> [A repost - Carl] [paraphrase: A critique of the Swinburne U. of Technology (Australia) computer policy. It is a great policy with excellent freedom of expression, due process and privacy provisions.] From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: Re: Swinburne U. of Technology (Australia) computer policy Date: 24 Apr 1994 17:15:54 -0400 Message-ID: <2penia$pbl@eff.org> Summary: A great policy with excellent freedom of expression, due process and privacy provisions. The full text of the policy is on-line. See ref. >Swinburne University of Technology >Network Accessand Code of Practice Policy >Computer Services & Information Technology [...] >1.3 While permitting access to AARNet and Internet resources, access >to non- public domain facilities is not permitted without explicit >authorisation from the owner of the remote facility. What is a "nonpublic domain facility"? >2. While supporting the general principle of open and universal >student access, eligibility for service which will enable such access >will be determined by the following priorities where insufficient >resources are available. Good. >5. The rules governing academic freedom at the University will apply >to the use of the communications networks, where the objective is the >transmission and pursuit of knowledge. Great! >6. The network code of practice includes the use of the >communications networks for the purpose of administrative support >activities associated with the academic and research activities >including social interaction between members of the University >community. Good. >8.1 The selection of accessible news groups will be based on the >relevance of the information disseminated by the news groups to >Swinburne's teaching and research. Good. >12. Private communications across the University's data networks will >have the same protection as private communications via telephone. >Unauthorised interception, reading, copying or modifying of private >electronic data (3) will be in breach of this code of practice and >subject to disciplinary or legal proceedings. The University will not >guarantee this privacy as a result of routine maintenance, technical >fault or criminal activity. Further: >12.1 No University employee will be permitted to intercept, read, >copy or modify private electronic data (either in transit across a >network or stored within a computer system) without the written >consent of the Vice-Chancellor or the consent of the addressee. >12.2 University employees who possess root or supervisor password >access will not be permitted to intercept, read, copy or modify >private electronic data (either in transit across a network or stored >within a computer system) without the written consent of the >Vice-Chancellor. Great! [...] >15. Users who breach this code of practice may, after due process, be refused >access to the University's computer and communications networks. Great! >15.1 In cases involving alleged illegal or fraudulent activity, the >University may, at the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor suspend >access privileges pending the outcome of legal proceedings. Good. - Carl ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= policies/swin.edu.au ================= Swinburne University of Technology Network Access and Code of Practice Policy - 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 (192.77.172.4), and then: cd /pub/CAF/policies get swin.edu.au 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/policies get swin.edu.au -- 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 EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = From caf-talk Caf Apr 24 17:44:39 1994 From: kadie@eff.org (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] AUP Review - UMass Date: 24 Apr 1994 17:44:37 -0400 Message-ID: <2pep85$q2m@eff.org> [A repost - Carl] [paraphrase: This is a critique of the U. of Massachusetts University Computing Services policy. 'Privacy protection is so vague as to be worthless. Due process protection is apparently ignored for some offensive. Censorship is explicitly rejected, but labeling of "offensive" material is required. The document does not say if users were involved in its creation.'] From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] AUP Review - UMass Date: 24 Apr 1994 17:28:37 -0400 Message-ID: <2peoa5$pls@eff.org> Summary: Privacy protection is so vague as to be worthless. Due process protection is apparently ignored for some offensive. Censorship is explicitly rejected, but labeling of "offensive" material is required. The document does not say if users were involved in its creation. > University Computing Services > Computer Use Policy > March 19, 1993 [...] > UCS will take any action necessary, including unannounced inspection >of a client's files, jobs, and terminal sessions, denial of access >privileges, and instigation of formal University disciplinary >procedures, in order to protect the reliability of the services and >the security of information. [...] And who has authority to authorizes unannounced inspection of client files? Any lab sitter or operator, any sys admin? The head of University Computing Services? The university chancellor? This is important. It should be specified. [...] >2.3 Privacy > > UCS will only inspect the contents of non-public files >to protect the reliability of its services. UCS makes no >attempt to censor any information held on its systems. [...] The censorship statement is good. [...] > Clients [i.e. users -cmk] must only access information that >belongs to them, is permitted to them, or is public. Clients must >not attempt to decode, crack, or discover passwords that belong to >others. UCS may remove clients who are found to possess programs >that could be used to access private information that belongs to >others. [...] What due process is there for clients that UCS decides to remove? Is the removal forever? [...] >3.4 Harassment > > UCS clients must not use UCS services to harass others. >This is considered a serious offense which UCS will pursue >according to University regulations. > > If a client wishes to make "objectionable" material >available through UCS services (such as bulletin boards), >the client must clearly label such material. UCS considers >sending unrequested objectionable (as defined by the >recipient) material to others to be harassment. The *requirement* that '"objectionable"' material on public bulletin boards be labeled is vague and contrary to the principles of intellectual freedom. Does the univesity library label '"objectionable"' books? [See refs] - Carl ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= library/labeling.ala ================= * Labeling (ALA) An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library Bill of Rights" It gives three reasons why labeling is bad. The first is that "[l]abeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a censor's tool." ================= ================= 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 labeling.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 labeling.ala -- 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 EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = From caf-talk Caf Apr 25 08:31:09 1994 From: kadie@eff.org (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news Subject: [SF Examiner] "Why Censoring Cyberspace Is Futile" Date: 25 Apr 1994 08:31:08 -0400 Message-ID: <2pgd6c$d2q@eff.org> [A repost - Carl] [Paraphrase: [Writer Howard Rheingold writing in the San Francisco Examiner] Censoring cyberspace is futile because 'As Net pioneer John Gilmore is often quoted: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."' "Yes, pedophiles and pornographers use computer networks. They also use telephones and the mail, but nobody would argue that we need to censor or shut down these forms of communication. The most relevant question now is: how do we teach our children to live, in an uncensorable world?" (Some suggestions are enclosed.)] From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: [SF Examiner] "Why Censoring Cyberspace Is Futile" Date: 24 Apr 1994 19:02:43 -0400 Message-ID: <2petqj$rk6@eff.org> [By Howard Rheingold. Originally published in the San Francisco Examiner, part of a weekly series of columns called "Tomorrow." Reposted with permission.] ======================================= vc.181: Howard Rheingold's "Tomorrow" Columns Online vc.181.27: Howard Rheingold (hlr) Tue 5 Apr 94 20:30 This will appear in tomorrow's Examiner: Why Censoring Cyberspace Is Futile By Howard Rheingold For years, many Netheads had a recurring nightmare that a pedophile would use a computer bulletin board system to make contact with a child, and follow up with physical abuse offline. Now this nightmare has become a reality. (See the news pages of today's Examiner.) It is only a matter of time before law enforcement authorities use cases like this to crack down on the free-wheeling, everything-is-permitted culture of cyberspace. It's not hard to imagine Jesse Helms standing before the US Senate, holding up an X-rated image downloaded from the Internet, raging indignantly about "public funds for porno highways." As the public begins to realize that communications technology is exposing them to an unlimited array of words and images, including some they might find thoroughly repulsive, the clamor for censorship and government regulation of the electronic highway is sure to begin. But it would be a mistake to let traffic cops start pulling people over on the highway. Yes, we have to think about ways of protecting our children and our society from the easy availability of every kind of abhorrent information imaginable. But the "censor the Net" approach is not just morally misguided. It's becoming technically impossible. As Net pioneer John Gilmore is often quoted: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." The Net's technological foundation was built to withstand nuclear attack. The RAND Corporation designed the network to be a thoroughly decentralized command-and-control-and communications system, one that would be less vulnerable to intercontinental missiles than a system commanded by a centralized headquarters. This decentralization of control means that the delivery system for salacious materials is the same worldwide one that delivers economic opportunity, educational resources, civic forums, and health advice. If a hacker in Helsinki or Los Angeles connects to the Internet and provides access to his digital porno files, anybody anywhere else in the world, with the right kind of Internet connection, can download those steamy bits and bytes. This technological shock to our moral codes means that in the future, we are going to have to teach our children well. The locus of control is going to have to be in their heads and hearts, not in the laws or machines that make information so imperviously available. Before we let our kids loose on the Internet, they better have a solid moral grounding and some common sense. I bought an Internet account for my daughter when she was eight years old, so we could exchange e-mail when I was on the road. But I didn't turn her loose until I filled her in on some facts of online life. "Just because someone sends you mail, you don't have to answer unless you know them," I instructed her. "And if anybody asks if you are home alone, or says something to you that makes you feel funny about answering, then just don't answer until you speak to me." The worldwide virtual communities that provide users with companionship, personal support, enlightenment, and entertainment can also contain imposters and worse. Your 14 year old might look like he is doing his homework, but is actually secretly joining a hot chat session with lecherous strangers. (The same dangers exist with the telephone -- ask parents who have had to pay hefty bills for their kids' 976 habits.) You should have the the right, and the ability, to restrict the massive information-flow into your home, to exclude subject matter that you don't want your children to see. But sooner or later, your children will be exposed to everything you have shielded them from, and then all they will have left to deal with these shocking sights and sounds is the moral fiber you helped them cultivate. Teach your children to be politely but firmly skeptical about anything they see or hear on the Net. Teach them to have no fear of rejecting images or communications that repel or frighten them. Teach them to have a strong sense of their own personal boundaries, of their right to defend those boundaries physically and socially. Teach them that people aren't always who they present themselves to be in e-mail and that predators exist. Teach them to keep personal information private. Teach them to trust you enough to confide in you if something doesn't seem right. Yes, pedophiles and pornographers use computer networks. They also use telephones and the mail, but nobody would argue that we need to censor or shut down these forms of communication. The most relevant question now is: how do we teach our children to live, in an uncensorable world? * * * -- 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 EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =