Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) Sun Apr 28 1991 Vol. 1, No. 3 Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org) [This issue covers notes posted in the caf-talk mailing list from April 21th to April 28th. Starting this coming Sunday, caf-news will be published on Sunday and will cover notes posted the previous week. In this issue, system administrators from Case Western and Purdue tell why they censored outgoing newsgroup messages. The necessity of their censorship is discussed (with comments by some of the people who were censored.) I critique a new e-mail policy by a department of the University of Illinois. According to the security officer of department, the policy permits disk-space searches of people who attack the University or the department in email. As of today (May 1st), the policy stands; according to the department, the policy will not be rescinded until (unless) a new policy is created. Other notes discuss the nature of academic freedom and the use of University facilities. - Carl] In this issue: Dan Brown 71 Speculation as to why AF suffers when computers are around junger@cwru 108 - Carl M. Kadie 215 New NCSA e-mail policy inconsistent with Academic Freedom Carl Kadie 13 > -- NCSA will change its policy Carl M. Kadie 18 > junger@cwru 60 "We can do anything we want with our network" davecb@nexus 64 >Academic Freedom, Reasonable Use, and Due Process Joe Wells 18 disclaimers automatically added to outgoing messages -- Censorship sucks. Rick Kulawiec 142 Well, was I a censor? Joe Wells 119 > -- Yes, but even worse you left a mechanism in place. Carl Kadie 52 - -- Hide behind principle, not censorship Sam Hill Cabal 42 >Dan Brown's Question The addresses for the list are now: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org - for contributions to the list or caf-talk@eff.org listserv@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions (send email with the line "help" for details.) caf-talk-request@eff.org - for administrivia Message-Id: <9104212213.AA25432@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 91 18:13:56 -0400 From: Dan Brown Subject: Re: Speculation as to why academic freedom suffers when computers are around Cc: brown@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu In reply to Peter Jungers last message, about the greed and incompetence, I as a "hired hand" have a few objections. First: Yes, most administrators are overworked, and probably shouldn't have the task of being netcops or censors placed on their shoulders. this doesn't mean that they are incompetant of completing the task, just that they are too busy trying to deal with (often irate and unreasonable) users, and complicated machines that are imperfect. Second: To my knowledge, most administrators will try to offer the best service they can to all of the users of the systems. They do not want to control the machines for their own evil dictatorish purposes, as was implied. They do want to maintain accessability, and usability of the systems for all of the users. Third: If the information is so publicly available, then how in the world can an administrator be accused of censorship for removing it from his system, especially if he or she, in his opinion, is doing so for the betterment (IE, keeping it available for people to use to communicate ideas, study, and do research) of the system. Is it censorship to delete expired usenet messages? Technically that would be removing information from the public view, but no one *1* screams when this happens. fourth: I and others have touched on this previously, I will restate here... Does preserving academic freedom mean trying make sure EVERYONE is ALWAYS able to do what he or she wants to do, or should it be taking what resources (time, money, computers, anything) and dividing what is available so that everyone has as much as possible? For example, if one user crashes the system because he or she is doing research on Unix Kernel programming, how fair is it to the user who is trying to learn C (and probably dumping core here and there... taking up disk space for...), or the user who is reading Comp-academic-Freedom ??? Some how it seems to me that people who are crying for freedom, and delivereance from opression and mistreatment, are actually making a more restrictive and opressive, law inflicted society. If for example, a hypothetical individual sued a corporation because they removed a note, that the corporation found innapropriate, for whatever reason, from a public place. That individual wins the suit on the grounds that his right to free speech has been violated (please don't ask for specifics, or argue that mr/s Hy Pothetical wouldn't have won... stranger things have happened in the courts of the United States). The corporation is probably going to make some limitations about what can and can't be posted in places that they have control over. There will also be a precedent (sp??) for other similar cases. Perhaps some insurance company will even start offering censorship policies, just in case you get sued for censoring something.... Does ANYONE out there see what I am saying??? It would seem to me that if people had the sence not to walk in front of large moving public transporta- tion vehicles, there wouldn't be less reason to cry for the right of way for the pedestians. Much less for the bus company to charge $3.50 a block just to cover insurance. I guess that what I am trying to say is that there is a time and place for everything, a forum for every discussion. A KKK member isn't probably going to get alot said dressed in his robe, standing on a corner in East Cleveland, though he probably has the right to. Students and faculty alike should use some common sence about picking when where and how they are going to be academic. They should consider the rights, and have some respect of the rest of their community. So you say that there is no law that says that they have to, well... there shouldn't have to be. 'Nuff Said. Dan Brown brown@usenet.ins.cwru.edu From: junger@cwru.cwru.edu Message-Id: <9104212100.AA12841@eff.org> Date: 21 Apr 91 16:48:00 EST Subject: Speculation as to why academic freedom suffers when computers are around Cc: junger@cwru.cwru.edu I am happy that Dudley Irish has come to a new position and that he now recognizes a student's right to academic freedom in the context of the removal of a posting from a campus wide unmoderated bulletin board. I am a little concerned, however, at the reliance that he places on a statement of the American Association of University Professors ("AAUP"), an organization that does a worthwhile job of protecting academic freedom, but is not authorized to--and would not claim authority to--legislate a definition of that freedom. As a law teacher I am made very uncomfortable by the bald statement of Tim Simpson (Department of Communication, Barry University, Bitnet: SIMPSON@BARRYU) that "the term [academic freedom] is a legal one." Whatever `Academic Freedom' may mean--and I do not think that it is profitable to try to cabin it by an exact definition--it is not a legal term. The existence of this list is, I think, evidence of that. Since many--probably most--universities are private institutions, efforts to protect academic freedom in such institutions by appeals to the Constitutional right of free speech under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Federal Constitution will generally fail (or at least be made very difficult) by the absence of state action. In rare cases, it may be possible for a faculty member or a student to claim a contractual right to academic freedom, but such an claim will inevitably assert that the pre-existing right of academic freedom has been impliedly incorporated into the faculty member or the student's contract with the educational institution. (In most such cases the claimant will be able to cite published institutional policies in favor of academic freedom and try to incorporate that into the contract.) In general, however, academic freedom is protected from the attack of academic (and other) yahoos by the threat of negative publicity (and, in extreme cases, boycotts by the AAUP), not by legal remedies. Academic Freedom is an ideal inherent in the very idea of a University, a community of scholars, an academic community. The tradition of academic freedom can thus be traced back at least to the medieval universities. The state and the bishop may try to suppress that freedom; the faculty and students will--if they have any concept of their roles in society and their own self-interest-- ardently defend it. To anyone with a minimum awareness of the goals and values of the academy, Jon C. Slenk's claims quoted below represent a vicious misunderstanding of the nature of the academic enterprise: "Basically, a private [educational] institution is a business venture: if they don't make money they will go under. So, if they are a business venture, they should be looking out for themselves. If they put a lot of money into computing systems and let their students get onto the nets, then I believe it is okay morally for them to say, `Hey, that letter can't go out!' and yank it." [There may be trade schools that are run on that basis, but their purpose is to produce fodder for the nations factories, not educated men and women. And even that sort of dismal sausage factory, if it is wise, will realize that its trainees are its customers--and thus not to be offended--not just sausages being ground out for consumption by the owners of the dark, satanic mills.] No university or college with any academic pretensions, however slight, can afford to advertise, or even admit, that it denies academic freedom (unless, of course, there is some powerful countervailing concern, like the religious dogma espoused by the institution or those values that are often parodied under the label of "political correctness"). So the question that justifies the existence of this list is: Why do universities and colleges seem so eager to deny academic freedom to those who use computers, when they would defend it valiantly in other contexts? Here at Case Western Reserve University it seems pretty clear that the answer lies in the fact that almost all of the faculty, most of the students, the central administration, and the deans, have no idea of how computers work or what they can be used for. At the same time, the powers that be have decided that a computer network is a good thing and have spent millions of dollars installing optical cables, and hundreds of dollars buying software for the machines that are connected to those cables. In these circumstances the entire University--faculty, students, and administrators--find themselves at the mercy of the hands who were hired to run that network. And those hired hands--who are terribly overworked--have as little understanding of the needs of the academic community as the powers that be had of the potentials and pitfalls of computers. The hired hands see nothing wrong in trying to keep publicly available information out of the hands of students and faculty members by censoring postings on a public (electronic) bulletin board; the powers that be, knowing that they know nothing of computers, would not dream of overruling the hired hands; the scientists and engineers who actually use computers in their work do not read electronic bulletin boards and do not depend on hired hands--or, at least, won't be hornswoggled by them; while the rest of the faculty and students, who would never for a moment permit the removal of the same information from the University libraries or bookstores, are, if anything, secretly delighted that some computer nerd has gotten his comeuppance. Now I happen to be convinced that computers are useful tools to aid in all sorts of academic undertakings, useful tools to aid in thought. But the trouble is that the hired hands have tried to grab control of the computers. And if computers have the potential that I think they have, then those who control the computers are going to control the production of our thoughts. Thus the computer, instead of being liberating, becomes an instrument for dumbing-down our institutions of learning--and the rest of society as well. If I am right in this understanding--and I assure you that I am--not only those soft-headed types who value freedom, but also the hard-headed economic warriors locked in battle with Japan, Inc., should be vitally concerned with the issue of computers and academic freedom. Peter D. Junger Professor of Law Case Western Reserve University ------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 04:42:14 -0500 From: "Carl M. Kadie" Message-Id: <9104230942.AA06697@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Subject: New NCSA e-mail policy inconsistent with Academic Freedom [Enclosed is a copy of a note I posted in "uiuc.general," a campus-wide newsgroup at the University of Illinois. I also sent e-mail copies to the administrators who approved the policy and to several Professors interested in these issues (including the president of the local chapter of the AAUP). Following this note, expect copies of the policy in question and my notes from a conversation with Michael Smith of the NCSA. I will, of course, keep the list informed as to what happens. - Carl Kadie] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The new NCSA e-mail policy permits searches and punishment of faculty, students, and researcher who "attack" the University, or the NCSA in e-mail. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) is a department in the University of Illinois' Graduate College. On April 1 [no kidding], the NCSA set down a new e-mail policy. The policy was cleared by the University's legal counsel and the Graduate College. Faculty, students, and researchers, however, were not consulted. Although the policy offers much good advice and addresses legitimate security concerns, it is overly broad and vague. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the principles of Academic Freedom, Constitutional rights, and University policies with respect to freedom of expression and privacy. The policy should concern all users of NCSA's e-mail facilities. It should also concern anyone who sends e-mail to a NCSA user or through a NCSA managed network. Finally, it should concern anyone who believes that the principles of academic freedom (including freedom of expression and privacy) apply to computers. In a sense, this note is not constructive. I will not suggest an alternate e-mail policy. Instead, I will criticize the current policy. It is my hope that criticism will lead to the retraction of the current policy and creation of a more balanced policy that respects the rights of computer users. Specifically, here are nine criticisms (in no particular order): 1) The policy was created without user representation. The faculty, students, and researchers who use NCSA e-mail should have helped form any policy. Also, any University committees concerned with Academic Freedom should have been consulted. 2) NCSA contracts with industry are not an excuse to override academic freedom and individual rights. One attempted justification of the policy is that the NCSA is contractually obligated to provide security and confidentiality to industry. This is no justification at all. Contracts with industry must be made within the boundaries of Academic Freedom. 3) E-mail to users at the NCSA from outside the NCSA deserves more protection. Under this policy, searches of a user's e-mail will be typically conducted by inspecting that user's mbox file. If you send e-mail to a NCSA user, your note might end up in his or her mbox. If the mbox file is searched, your note might be read (without any suspicion about you and without the permission of the addressee). 4) The policy gives the Director extraordinary power with no check and balances. No search can be done without explicit authorization from the Director of the NCSA. The Director, however, reports to no one. 5) Due process is not guaranteed in the policy. If a user (faculty or student) is found to have committed an offense, he or she should have the right to a formal hearing and the right of appeal. Also, some of the due process that is provided is not guaranteed in writing. For example, there is an unwritten policy that the Director cannot delegate the authority to authorize a search. This protection should be make explicit. 6) The policy fails to respect e-mail. The policy allows disk space to be searched, but there is no similar policy allowing telephones or campus mail to be monitored or offices to be searched. Privacy should be respected in all its forms. 7) The policy is vague. It prohibits e-mail that "attempts to disadvantage NCSA." What does this mean? It prohibits "inappropriate information disclosures," but does not define "inappropriate". 8) The policy may prohibit constitutionally protected speech. According to Michael Smith, the Associate Director of the NCSA, the phrase "attempts to disadvantage NCSA" prohibits attacks in e-mail on the NCSA and the University. This interpretation (of a vague phrase) is inconsistent with the First Amendment, Academic Freedom, and University policy. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" This amendment also applies to the States and to State institutions such as this University. It protects your right to forcefully criticize institutions such as the NCSA and the University. The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students it the main statement on the academic freedom of students. It has been endorsed by the American Association of University Professors, the U. S. National Student Association, and the Association of American Colleges. It says: "Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and independent search for truth." Faculty's freedom of expression is, of course, also protected by Academic Freedom. The University of Illinois Code on Campus Affairs says: "STATEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS I. Preamble A student at the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign campus is a member of the University community of which all members have at least the rights and responsibilities common to all citizens, free from institutional censorship; affiliation with the University as a student does not diminish the rights or responsibilities held by a student or any other community member as a citizen of larger communities of the state, the nation, and the world." ... "III. Campus Expression A. Discussion and expression of all views is permitted within the University subject only to requirements for the maintenance of order. [...] C. The campus press and media are to be free of censorship. The editors and managers shall not be arbitrarily suspended because of student, faculty, administration, alumni, or community disapproval of editorial policy or content." ... "VI. Student Affairs [...] B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression 1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and to discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions publicly and privately. [...] 2. Students should be allowed to invite and hear any person of their own choosing. [...] The University's control of campus facilities should not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed either by the sponsoring group or the institution." 9) The policy may allow constitutionally prohibited search. The Fourth Amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." A government institution, such as this University can not ignore these protections just because it owns the facilities [Mancusi v. DeForte 392 U.S. 364, 368 (1967); Gillard v. Schmidt 579 F.2d 825, 829 (3d Cir. 1978)] University privacy policy is described in the Code on Campus Affairs. I think University rules concerning assigned office space provide the best model of how disk space and e-mail should be treated. "IV. Privacy A. Members of the University community have the same rights of privacy as other citizens and surrender none of those rights by becoming members of the academic community. These rights of privacy extend to residence hall living. Nothing in University regulations or contracts shall give University officials authority to consent to a search by police or other government officials of offices assigned or living quarters leased to individuals except in response to a properly executed search warrant or search incident to an arrest. B. When the University seeks access to an office assigned or living quarters leased to an individual to determine compliance with provisions of applicable multiple-dwelling unit laws, ordinances, and regulations, or for improvement or repairs, the occupant shall be notified of such action not less that twenty-four hours in advance. There may be entry without notice in emergencies where imminent danger to life, safety, health, or property is reasonably feared and for custodial service. C. The University may not conduct or permit a search of an office assigned or living quarters leased to an individual except in response to a properly executed search warrant or search incident to an arrest." In conclusion, the new NCSA e-mail policy is inconsistent with the constitutional rights and the academic freedom of faculty, students, and researchers. It says that freedom of expression and the right to privacy to not extend to computers. I urge the NCSA to rescind the policy. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 10:04:47 EDT From: kadie (Carl Kadie) Message-Id: <9104241404.AA16675@eff.org> Subject: Re: New NCSA e-mail policy inconsistent with Academic Freedom Summary: NCSA will change its policy [I originally sent this last night, but I don't think it got sent out, so I'm resending - Carl] I'm happy to report that the NCSA has decided to revise its e-mail policy. According to James Bottum, Deputy Director of the NCSA, the new policy will be created with the help of the NCSA's users and in consultation with campus committees concerned with academic freedom. - Carl Kadie Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 14:37:24 -0500 From: "Carl M. Kadie" Message-Id: <9104241937.AA28098@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Subject: Re: New NCSA e-mail policy inconsistent with Academic Freedom Thanks to a discussion on "uiuc.general", a newsgroup at U. of Illinois, more details are coming out. 1) It appears that some time in March (?), an NCSA student (?) employee(s?) anonymously sent e-mail to someone?/everyone? at the NCSA. The recipent(s) found the mail to be "rude, crude, and very immature". The e-mail was make to look like it came from "saddam@iraq.bunker.gov". 2) The sender was somehow identified (by a search of his or her mbox?) and fired. 3) On April 1st, an e-mail policy was handed down that, among other things, permits searches of mboxes is someone uses e-mail to "attempt to disadvantage NCSA". (I don't know the order of #2 and #3.) From: junger@cwru.cwru.edu Message-Id: <9104242207.AA20760@eff.org> Date: 24 Apr 91 17:58:00 EST Subject: "We can do anything we want with our network" Cc: junger@cwru.cwru.edu I am glad to see from Carl M. Kadie's most recent message that NCSA has decided to revise its e-mail policy. I wish that the powers that be here at Case Western Reserve University were as reasonable. This morning I attended a meeting of our Faculty Senate's Computer Committee where I raised the issue of censorship of electronic messages and suggested that the Faculty Senate should adopt a firm position that the use of electronic media is fully protected by the principle of academic freedom. The Vice-President in charge of out network was there and, though it was not really relevant to my point, we got in a dispute as to whether the CWRU case that has been mentioned here actually involved a violation of academic freedom and free speach--that was the case involving the removal from a public electronic bulletin board of the _source code_ of a chat program that demonstrated how to get a packet driver to send a packet over an ethernet. I insisted that the censorship of source code could not be justified as necessary to prevent a clear and pressing danger; the vice-president--to my astonishment--then claimed that he had obtained an opinion from our University Counsel's office to the effect that the posting of the message (including the source code) could amount to a fourth degree felony (or misdemeanor or whatever, my ears were too startled to listen well) under Ohio law. So this afternoon I called the Counsel's office and spoke with an assistant counsel. He said that he had never given such an opinion, but that he had said that if the program was _used_ by a student to improperly obtain information from a computer network (or something like that) then it might constitute a violation of Ohio law. Now that's OK. The assistant counsel was giving perfectly proper advice; lawyers are not generally held liable for the misuse, or the misconstruals, that their clients make of their opinions. But then the assistant counsel went on and told me--I don't know if he gave this opinion to the Vice President or not--"it's our network and we can do whatever we want with it." Now the assistant counsel is probably right as a matter of law, so long as the university doesn't try to increase its endowment by wire fraud or something like that, but that hardly addresses the question of academic freedom. I have every confidence that the Faculty Senate will in its testudinarian fashion eventually make clear that academic freedom is not abandoned when one uses a computer; but I am afraid that that resolution is going to take a long time. In the meantime, I hope that some of you will post messages that I can in turn show to the University administration in order to shame it into behaving properly. I can't help but think of the subtitle that Thorsten Veblen wanted to use for his book on The Governance of Universities: "A Study in Utter Depravity." Peter D. Junger Case Western Reserve University Law School Cleveland, Ohio Internet: JUNGER@CWRU.CWRU.EDU ---- Bitnet: JUNGER@CWRU ------ Subject: Re: Academic Freedom, Reasonable Use, and Due Process Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 08:31:35 EDT From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca Message-Id: <91Apr25.083240edt.6275@nexus.yorku.ca> Thank you Mr. Irish, this was a usefull and worthwhile exercise. However, I wish to disagree most strongly with your underlying assumptions... In <9104242204.AA01711@math.utah.edu>, Dudley Irish says: | Now, what makes this all work is that all institutions | that care about academic freedom for their students have a way for | those students to get a room for a meeting. [...] Frankly, | in my opinion (he said slipping into the asbestos suit), unless we are | talking about a system that is the computer equivalent of a student | union then a students use of that computer for non-class related | speech is not protected by academic freedom. Clearly at a well | managed and open minded institution there will be a great deal of | latitude granted on the computer systems which do exist. Also, I | think that we will see more and more computerized student unions. | Until then, I think that the administrators of limited computer | resources are entitled to ask people to take their activism offline | and into the student union. My home university had and has a differnt approach: it has no student union building and for may years had no strong student organizations. Instead it was sensitive, almost oversensitive, to student concerns. As a student faced with a ``situation'' in a lab, I had considerable latitude for action against the department which caused the problem: I had help from my own department, broad moral support from my classmates, pointed advice from the legal aid department of the law faculty and, if necessary, members of the senate elected from the student body prepared to make a motion of public censure (!) This is a very different situation from an organization which thinks in terms of places and property: this is an institution which has a tradition of propriety. In part that is due to the fact that the university was created from three religious colleges who had had to learn to get along with each other: Assumption (Roman Catholic), Iona (United Church) and Canterbury (Anglican). In part it is due to the different history of Canadian/British versus American universities. In our tradition, student iniatives are part of the university process, just as students are part of the university community. Students have rights and duties as members of the community and these are supported by the whole community. One does not have to purchase a building to exercise one's rights, any more than one has to purchase a printing press to exercise one's talents at the student newspaper. I do not believe this tradition is all that unfamiliar in the United States: I have visited places where it seems to have grown much as it did at Windsor. Nor do I believe the tradition of baseing personal rights on property rights is peculiar to the 'States. I have seen it here, and have fallen into the trap myself, as Peter Danielson can testify. I have come to belive that property-based arguements are an oversimplification: they lead to conclusions that are actively distructive to the purposes and tratitions of the university. I claim that it is the tradition, including the tradition of granting extraordinary academic freedoms, that informs the process. It is the tradition of fairness that causes a university to make space and resources available, even though they belong to the administration of the university. Indeed, the university that has a student union probebly needs one... --dave (at a university that just built a ``stuent centre'') c-b Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 20:42:49 -0400 From: jbw@cs.bu.edu (Joe Wells) Message-Id: <9104270042.AA21070@bucsd.bu.edu> Subject: disclaimers automatically added to outgoing messages Summary: Censorship sucks. Warning: This message was not approved by a censor. References: <9104262052.AA03695@math.uchicago.edu> Sent-Via: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org >>>>> "Francis" == Francis Stracke writes: > 1) "[T]hat sponsorship of" a news/e-mail systems "does not necessarily > imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed, either by the > sponsoring group or the institution." Francis> Somebody said a while back that they patched their NNTP server to Francis> add a disclaimer line to each header. Maybe this should become a Francis> standard feature. Or in the case of a site that engages in censorship, a disclaimer should be added that says "This article approved by censor". -- Enjoy, Joe Wells Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 10:29:29 -0400 From: rsk@juniper.circ.upenn.edu (Rick Kulawiec) Posted-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 10:29:29 -0400 Message-Id: <9104261429.AA17887@juniper.circ.upenn.edu> Subject: Well, was I a censor? Cc: rsk@juniper.circ.upenn.edu First, I'm going to respond to this: > From: stan kulikowski ii > > i did such a sidestep once when the purdue censor > yanked one of my postings (without any notification, by the way). That's simply not true -- you may disagree strongly with what I did, but you have no reason to think that I ever did anything behind your back. There are lots of reasons your article may not have made it out: full disk partitions, dropped network connections, NNTP botch, etc....it happens every day. I don't think I'll ever convince Stan that I was not acting as a censor when I was the news administrator for the computing center at Purdue. His mind seems to have been made up long ago, and he now insists on the label "censor", which I feel is undeserved. Let me tell the rest of you why, and then you, if you want, can try to convince me otherwise. I'd like to think I have an open mind about this; but responses like "How does it feel to be part of the problem?", which came my way the other day, are probably not going to very persuasive. ;-) First, a word about how Usenet news works for those of you on Bitnet and other places. Usenet news is essentially a distributed bulletin board, compartmentalized into several hundred sections dealing with numerous topics. (E.g. comp.ai.vision deals with AI techniques in computer vision; rec.backcountry deals with hiking, etc.) Individual messages posted to these "newsgroups", as they are called, propagate from site to site via a flooding algorithm that tries to send every article to every site. Estimates of the size of Usenet vary wildly, but 10,000 sites and 500,000 users are probably ballpark numbers. Every site that runs news has, in theory, a mail address "news" to which comments, complaints, and miscellany may be sent; the local news administrator is supposed to be on the receiving end of that address. Newsgroups fall into two broad categories: moderated and unmoderated. Unmoderated newsgroups may be posted to directly by anyone; an article sent to one of these newsgroups will show up locally (first), and then will work its way outward from there. Moderated newsgroups may only be posted to by the moderator: the proper etiquette is to mail the article to the moderator, who screens it and then posts it. What "screens" means varies from moderator to moderator. Some just check to see if the topic of the article is appropriate to the newsgroup and pass it on; others lightly edit to fix grammar and spelling errors; still others try to winnow a large volume of articles in order to present a small number that strike a balance between multiple points of view. In the ten years that I've been on Usenet, I've been completely impressed with how hard moderators try to do their task with equanimity; I can count the number of times (that I'm aware of) that a moderator did something dubious on one hand. Usenet etiquette is defined by a set of continually evolving consensus guidelines which are periodically posted to the newsgroup news.announce.newusers, and are available at most sites in a publicly-readable directory. These guidelines are mostly refined common sense, e.g. "Don't post an article to 83 newsgroups", "When following up, don't quote a 300-line article in its entirety", and so on. Many sites supplement this with a set of guidelines for the use of their local newsgroups; I provided the users at Purdue's computing center with a 4-page document that (1) summarized the Usenet etiquette and (2) explained the local etiquette. Now a word about Purdue. Purdue's administration is extremely sensitive to adverse publicity of any kind -- believe me, I know from firsthand experience. They were, and are, concerned about the contents of any articles emanating from a Purdue site. This is why, for a very long time, only faculty and the staff (full-time and student) of the computing center were allowed to post articles to non-local newsgroups. (This was *not* my choice. I argued for changing it about once a semester.) This is also why, at one point, computing center staff were advised that posting articles to non-work-related groups could be construed to constititute a misuse of center resources. (This also was *not* my choice. I argued against it strongly on the grounds that it was a content-sensitive restriction as opposed to a context-based restriction.) Now here's the real problem: users were posting articles that generated complaints. Now, a few squawks here and there are no big deal. But when one article from one user generates dozens of letters to "news" from people all over the world, there's a problem. For a time, I tried to ignore it, because dealing with news was one small part of my job, and I had other fish to fry. But when the complaints began to reach people other than me, I began to worry. There were rumblings that news could possibly go away. So here's what I did: I set up the outbound news spooler so that it would send me a copy of any outbound article. Once a day, I glanced through these (usually there were less than 10) to see if any of them had anything grossly wrong with them. "Grossly wrong" means "things that don't follow Usenet etiquette", for example, an article which quoted a preceding (lengthy) article in its entirety. ("Grossly wrong" does *not* mean "expressed an unpopular point of view".) If I found such an article, I'd send out a cancel message (which causes the article to disappear from Usenet), and mail the article back to the originator with a note telling them what was wrong with it. The idea of this was to sidestep the process that would start when the complaints coming in reached the ears of those people higher up. Did I like doing it? No. It was a pain in the ass. But it beat having news yanked in its entirety, which seemed to me to be a very real possibility if something wasn't done. Was it censorship? I don't think so, and let me tell you why not. First, I consider what I was doing no more obstrusive that what someone might do with a physical bulletin board in a campus hallway: if the person in charge of the bulletin boards finds a "Couch for sale" note on the bulletin board reserved for student jobs, is it censorship for them to unpin that note and carry it back to the person who posted it and ask them to put it on the for-sale board? Second, I never returned anyone's article to them because of what they had to say -- I allowed articles to pass (lots of them) that were critical of the computing center, critical of Purdue, critical of my favorite football team, whatever. Third, I made sure everyone had a chance to know the rules up front: they were posted to local newsgroups, available in a public directory on every machine, referred to by the news-posting program itself, and so on. I didn't want anyone to be surprised -- but I know some people were. (Which brings up a separate issue: if you need to tell 7000 users of your systems something, *how* do you tell them?) I don't think the rules were terribly restrictive -- to use the physical bulletin board analogy again, many campuses have rules that specify no postings larger than 8.5x11 inches, or require an approval stamp for certain bulletin boards, or reserve some departmental bulletin boards for things like grades, class announcements, etc. Fourth, if I really wanted to censor someone, I had far more effective means at my disposal. With a few keystrokes, I could have disabled them from posting news to any or all newsgroups. I could have rigged a program to cancel all of their articles every night. I could have caused our outbound news link to drop all their articles on the floor. (Or, best of all, I could have done nothing and waited for the one article that would cause Purdue to yank Usenet news entirely.) But I certainly wouldn't have told them about it. There's more to it, but this is long enough, I think, to get the idea across. I welcome reasoned arguments to the contrary position, especially those which refute points 1-4 above. ---Rsk Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 20:42:42 -0400 From: jbw@cs.bu.edu (Joe Wells) Message-Id: <9104270042.AA21067@bucsd.bu.edu> Subject: Re: Well, was I a censor? Summary: Yes, but even worse you left a mechanism in place. Warning: This message was not approved by a censor. References: <9104261429.AA17887@juniper.circ.upenn.edu> Sent-Via: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org >>>>> "Rick" == Rick Kulawiec writes: Rick> That's simply not true -- you may disagree strongly with what I did, Rick> but you have no reason to think that I ever did anything behind your ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Rick> back. No matter how loudly you deny that Stan's reasons are true, it does not mean that he has no reasons to think you censored his article. The mere fact that you are known to monitor outgoing USENET articles because of prior complaints about other articles is a very strong reason for him to believe you were responsible for an act of censorship. If you wanted people to think you were an honest upstanding citizen, you should have refused to ever become involved in any USENET monitoring, no matter what the circumstance were. Rick> Purdue's administration is extremely sensitive to adverse publicity Rick> of any kind -- believe me, I know from firsthand experience. They Rick> were, and are, concerned about the contents of any articles Rick> emanating from a Purdue site. This is why, for a very long time, Rick> only faculty and the staff (full-time and student) of the computing Rick> center were allowed to post articles to non-local newsgroups. Translation: They do not wish to allow freedom of expression to their students on USENET. They wish to prevent articles with certain contents from being posted. (In the outside world, this is known as CENSORSHIP.) (Yes, Purdue has the legal right to do this. Having the right to censor is a separate issue from whether the censorship is moral.) Rick> Now here's the real problem: users were posting articles that generated ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Rick> complaints. "The real problem" is that you (and presumably many others) at Purdue didn't stand up to defend the right to free expression (which was not legally guaranteed in these circumstances, thus requiring someone to stand up for it, or it would be lost). Rick> But when the complaints began to reach people other than me, I began Rick> to worry. There were rumblings that news could possibly go away. And you (and others) weren't willing to fight for it. Or rather, you *were* willing to censor for it. Rick> So here's what I did: I set up the outbound news Rick> spooler so that it would send me a copy of any outbound article. Rick> Once a day, I glanced through these (usually there were less than 10) Rick> to see if any of them had anything grossly wrong with them. And you got to decide. And of course, you're perfect and would never make a mistake and "accidentally" censor based on informational content. But what about your successor? Is he/she as unbiased as you claim to be? Rick> "Grossly wrong" means "things that don't follow Usenet etiquette", Rick> for example, an article which quoted a preceding (lengthy) article Rick> in its entirety. Can you name one grossly wrong thing that could not be detectable with a program? Until you thoroughly prove why a program could not do the job, your explanation is just an excuse. A program is preferable because artificial intelligence does not yet exist and thus a program could not censor an article based on its message. Rick> First, I consider what I was doing no more obstrusive that what someone Rick> might do with a physical bulletin board in a campus hallway: if the Rick> person in charge of the bulletin boards finds a "Couch for sale" Rick> note on the bulletin board reserved for student jobs, is it Rick> censorship for them to unpin that note and carry it back to the Rick> person who posted it and ask them to put it on the for-sale board? Yes, this is censorship, as per definition 1 of censorship and definition 1.2 of censor listed here (from Webster's, unknown edition): cen.sor.ship \'sen(t)-s*r-.ship\ n 1: the institution, system, or practice of censoring or censors 2: the office, power, or term of a Roman censor 3: exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor 1. cen.sor \'sen(t)-s*r\ \sen-'so-r-e--*l, -'so.r-\ n [L, fr. cense-re to assess, tax; akin to Skt s'am.sati herecites] 1: one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct 2a: an official who examines publications for objectionable matter 2b: an official who reads communications and deletes forbidden material archaic 3: a faultfinding critic 4: the psychic agency that represses unacceptable notions before they reach consciousness - cen.so.ri.al aj 2. censor \'sen(t)s-(*-)rin\ vt or cen.sor.ing : to subject to censorship Currently, the owner of the communications medium has the right to censor any communication that uses it. I do not argue that this is wrong in the case of a hallway bulletin board. I do argue that this is wrong in the case of USENET. Thus, in addition to the fact that your example does not exhibit something that is not censorship, it is irrelevant to the current debate. Rick> Second, I never returned anyone's article to them because of what Rick> they had to say -- I allowed articles to pass (lots of them) that were Rick> critical of the computing center, critical of Purdue, critical of my Rick> favorite football team, whatever. But why should we believe you? You've already admitted you were involved in censorship (you did not use this word), therefore destroying much of your credibility. The only statement we have that says you showed restraint is from you. Even if you didn't abuse the mechanism, and we have only your word on this, the mechanism you set up is very easy to abuse. It makes it very easy for someone in charge to tell the current censor that articles with certain contents are not to go out. It also relies on the integrity of the censor, which is historically an unwise thing to do. Fortunately, there are still easy ways to get around instances of network fascism like this, eg. mail to news.group.name@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu. -- Enjoy, Joe Wells Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 17:32:25 -0400 From: kadie (Carl Kadie) Message-Id: <9104272132.AA22328@eff.org> Subject: Well, was I a censor? Summary: Hide behind principle, not censorship q: Suppose my boss at the University says "I just got a complaint letter, either tone down netnews or I will order it shut down. Now if I monitor outgoing mail/notes to be sure it is "nice", I'm a a censor? a: Yes. You may not be an evil censor (merely a between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place censor), but you are a censor. q: What can I do? a: (These suggestions are pure in the sense that I've never tried them) 1. Tell others at your University of the situation and of your dilemma; tell us. If your boss hates criticism, he or she may discover that there is more protection behind the principle of academic freedom and freedom of expression than behind censorship. 2. (I think I saw this in an army movie.) Tell your boss that because you are not sure that his or her orders are consistent with University policy, that you would like those orders in writing. Say that you are carrying out the orders under protest. q: Is it OK to inspect all notes and to censor out notes that are not of a moderate tone? a: (I'm paraphrasing from an ACLU handbook on teacher's legal rights) Generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by the First Amendment [or Academic Freedom -cmk], does not lose that protection because its tone is sharp. Discussions will not always be models of decorum. A court observed that "often those with the power to appoint will be on one side of a controversial issue and find it convenient to use their opponent's momentary stridency as a pretext to squelch them. q: Is it OK to inspect all notes and to censor out notes that may be libelous? a: Inspecting all notes before they go out is inconsistent with academic freedom. It is prior restraint. Legally, as far as I've heard, there as never been a libel suit because of something written on the net. (Thus, no such libel suit has ever been won, and no electronic distributor, e.g. a University, has ever been found liable for libel.) By inspecting the notes you may be *increasing* your liability. The law on this is not settled, but it is reasonable to suppose that by inspecting notes you are accepting responsibility for them. Before you were just a distributor, now you are an editor. Message-Id: <9104261734.AA19414@rodan.acs.syr.edu> Cc: brown@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Subject: Re: Dan Brown's Question Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 13:34:38 -0400 From: "Sam Hill Cabal, DS" Dan Brown writes: Also, since the system administrator is likely to be held responsible for the information that is stored on the systems that he/she manages, why shouldn't s/he be allowed to censor it, if s/he feel it neccessary to do so? IMHO if someone isn't allowed to protect themselves from being associated, then that person shouldn't be held resonsible. From what I have seen, in our society, it doesn't work that way. Anyone can be held liable for anything that they are vaguely associated with. Why should they not be allowed to protect themselves? I reply: Dan, a system administrator _should_not_ be held responsible for information stored on a system that they _manage_. The job of a sys-admin is to keep the system running, and to fix it when it crashes. I don't understand people who get upset and send nasty messages to sys-admins when they read something that offends them on Usenet, on a BBS, or in e-mail. The person responsible is the person who composed the message, and not the people running the computer it was sent from. What I tend to do is read everything that looks interesting -- if I start to see a pattern where one person (or username, anyway) is posting stuff I think is stupid or offensive, I stop reading stuff from that username -- via a kill file or just by deleting messages from that username from my mail. People need to start taking responsibility for their _own_ actions and opinions, rather than laying that responsibility on others. If sys-admins take it upon themselves to censor outgoing news/mail, they are saying that all news/mail that is allowed to pass is approved by the institution and that they are taking responsibility for its contents. TSD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Hill Cabal "Them people'll do anything for money. You'd be bwdavies@sunrise.bitnet suprised. They ain't like us, Doc. They're bwdavies@rodan.acs.syr.edu Christians." -Seldom Seen Smith