Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) Sun May 12, 1991 Vol. 1, No. 5 Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org) [With the end of the school year at many places, traffic on the list has slowed. Readership, however, is now up to 250 in at least six countries. This issue includes information on how to get back issues of caf-news from the archives and information on how to get copies of the computer policies of many schools. It also has a report of attempted expression suppression (under the guise of political correctness?). The main topic in this issue is a discussion of exactly how the principles of academic freedom should be applied to computers and networks (with excerpted comments from Sanjay Kapur, Edward Vielmetti, George Rickerson, Aydin Edguer, and Rich Kulawiec. - Carl] In this issue: Carl Kadie 26 Which rights? M K Thakur 85 >Which rights? <9105081744.AA15038@eff.org> stan k ii 73 leggo my eggo Carl Kadie 309 New to the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) archive Carl Kadie >Which rights? -- General comments -- Freedom of expression -- Privacy -- Due process -- Personal use -- Misc 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 Date: Tue, 7 May 91 22:46:36 -0400 From: kadie (Carl Kadie) Message-Id: <9105080246.AA08144@eff.org> Subject: Which rights? Here is my list of academic freedoms as applied to computers: Freedom of expression freedom to receive electronic mail and receive newsgroups freedom to send mail and post notes to newsgroups Privacy information in a users disk files is private (the user may not own the disk, but he or she does own the information) email is private Due Process There is a general right to due process notice must be given before new rules are enforced warrents must be obtained prior to searches rights cannot be signed away Access Computer and network access shall not be denied without due process Limits If a lack of resources requires that computer use be limited, that limitation should implemented by giving (or selling) some quota of resources to the user. No general restrictions should be made on how the user uses those resources. ---------- I'd welcome comments, additions, and criticisms. - Carl Message-Id: <9105082112.AA00338@zerkalo.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Which rights? <9105081744.AA15038@eff.org> Date: Wed, 08 May 91 17:12:15 EDT From: "Manavendra K. Thakur" >>>>> On Wed, 08 May 91 12:33:19 CDT, George Rickerson said: > I can't agree with your inclusion of privacy rights under the > heading academic freedom. I work for a tax-supported university. > All of the documents I create as part of my work, including letters, > are the property of the university and are public documents. [...] > If I want a letter to be private, I write it on my time, use my > paper, and mail it with my postage. Similarly, if I want my email > to be private, I had better compose it on my workstation and mail it > on a service that I have subscribed to. What about the students and professors who work at the university? Do all the homework assignments and term papers and final examinations that they produce belong to the university as well? Are these all considered "public documents" as well? I hardly think so! I think students and professors would be greatly angered to find out that their grade records and peer-review evaluations were considered "public documents" and disseminated freely. Now transform that into an electronic context. If students and faculty are given access to computers and the internet, are you really claiming that just by virtue of the fact that someone mails a letter from a taxpayer-funded computer that the letter then becomes university property and a public document? Again, I hardly think so. I think the more appropriate analogy for a computer network in this case would be to a US Postal Service mailbox that happens to reside on campus. Both provide the means to communicate with people at local or remote sites. In the case of the USPS mailbox, there are legal laws that protect the privacy of first class letters. In the same way, I and other people on the list are arguing that it is entirely appropriate for the provider of an electronic mailbox -- especially if this is in the context of an academic community -- to install similar safeguards of privacy protection as the USPS. > The essential idea of academic freedom is not that my expressions > are private but that I am able to make those expressions, whatever > they may be short of something consituting moral turpitude, without > fear of retaliation. (Those "moral turpitude" exceptions always get my goat. Who decides?) Another important aspect of academic freedom is the right to be free from unauthorized surveillance and unwarranted search and seizures - precisely because such activities have a chilling effect on people's willingess to express themselves "without fear of retaliation," as you put it. Now consider that these rights (no unauthorized surveillance, no unwarranted search and seizures, and others) are in actuality restrictions on the authority of administrative personnel. Now take these same procedural safeguards and look at them from the point of view of the beneficiary of these rights: saying that "administrators may not perform surveillance without proper authorization" is equivalent to saying "people have the right to privacy and that right may not be infringed upon by the authorities without proper permission and procedural safeguards". So I would argue that the right to privacy is inherently tied with the "essential idea of academic freedom" - and indeed to all freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. For a third way of looking at it, consider what academic freedom would be like in a perfect world. I submit that the ultimate goal of academic freedom and indeed the Bill of Rights should be to make the need for privacy obsolete. The way this would be attained is by perfecting our administrative procedures and enlightening people to the point that no one can be done any harm if they say unpopular things (yes, even if they say things constituting moral turpitude). I'm sure you're snickering by this point at my idealistic example, but that's just the point: since it is quite unlikely that we'll ever achieve such a perfect state of academic freedom, the need for privacy has not (and probably will not) become obsolete. Far from it: the need for privacy rights is intrinsic to the notion of academic freedom and indeed to the idea of a free society. Manavendra K. Thakur Internet: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu Systems Programmer, High Energy Division BITNET: thakur@cfa.BITNET Harvard-Smithsonian Center for DECNET: CFA::thakur Astrophysics UUCP: ...!uunet!mit-eddie!thakur Message-Id: <9105101933.AA11502@eff.org> 2734; Fri, 10 May 91 14:32:58 CDT Date: Fri, 10 May 91 14:28:14 CDT From: stan kulikowski ii Subject: leggo my eggo if you are watching some of the other groups, we have a case study in computer freedom of expression going on right now. the new list announcement service (new-list@ndsuvm1.bitnet) circulated the opening of a list, called legs (wyle@czheth5a), "an informal, anonymous list for sharing images, discussion about women's legs". this has not been received favorably on the women and information technology list (educom-w @bitnic.bitnet). see their subject: thread 'outrageous'. this is an example of one network group going after another network group as an organized effort. at first suggestions were to write objections to the list owner, mitchell wyle. it was then suggested that they join the list and send objections there. recently the concensus seems to be send their objections to the node manager (system@czheth5a) in zurich switzerland to get the middle management to silence the legs group as 'inappropriate use of computer resources'. when one person complains about another person on the networks, we call this a 'flame war'. a few months ago there was such an outbreak on the educational technology group (edtech@ohstvma.bitnet) when one user flamed the use of the term 'sex appeal' applied to early apple2 microcomputers. eventually flame wars get damped down by other readers on a list, or they move into personal email... where they probably belonged in the first place. it seems that this legs/educom-w case has a parallel to flame warfare, but on the level of network collectives, rather than individual users. besides personally flaming the list owner, they have organized an effort to go for the jugular: get system management to adjust the throttle on the offenders. it would be interesting to find out how system@czheth5a responds to this situation. would it matter if mitchell wyle were an art faculty conducting a multidisciplinary seminar in anatomical representation or just some nerd student with a foot fetish? stan . stankuli@UWF.bitnet === | | close your eyes, my darling, or three of them at least --- -- old venusian lullaby >From kadie Sun May 12 23:38:05 1991 To: cafb-mail Date: Sat, 11 May 91 20:10:10 -0400 From: kadie (Carl Kadie) Message-Id: <9105120010.AA11281@eff.org> Subject: New to the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) archive Back issues of CAF-news are now available via anonymous ftp from eff.org (192.88.144.3). They are in directory academic/news. The issues to date are cafv01n01, cafv01n02, cafv01n03, and cafv01n04. Also, the Computer Undergound Digest's archives contains the policy statements from many universities. I've copied them to the CAF archive on eff.org. They are in directory academic/widener. I'm enclosing the Index file. - Carl encl: Index to policy statements of many universities README file for the CAF archive Info on how to get these files via email. ================================ index.policy This file A general Info file. Acadia.policy Acadia University Computer Centre, Computer Centre Policies Baylor.policy Baylor University's Ethics Code and Policies Bibliography A file for citations and references. BITNET.policy BITNET Abuse policy BostonU.policy Boston University's Policy on Computing Ethics ColgateU.policy A policy statement from Cogate Univerity's Student Handbook. As well as a copy of the standard agreement form. ColumbiaU.policy University of Columbia's Policy. Permission to copy should be sent to the CUCCA seth@ctr.columbia.edu DanWebster.policy Daniel Webster College's policy agreements for student employees. JMadisonU.policy a draft of a Computer Ethics Statement by an Ad Hoc Committee on Computer Literacy at James Madison University Kansas.State.policy A policy statement published by Computing and Telecommunications Activities, Cardwell 20, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506. Oct. 1988 MichStU.policy John Lees forwards a _draft_ of a policy for the College of Engineering at Michigan State University. Mich.TechU.policy MTU Policies, Michigan Technological University NewCastleU.policy University of New Castle rules and regulations for central & departmental facilities. Comments by Alan Hargraves. NewMexStU.policy D. Bryan Emery submits a published policy statement from New Mexico State University. It has evolved from several iterations of study. Other.Info Files that reference other pertinent information and sources. Purdue.policy Purdue Univ. Engineering policy, August 7, 1987 RIACS.policy (Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science). It draws heavily from the MIT Project Athena policy statement posted earlier in RISKS. RoseHulman.CS.policy Frank Young Chairman, Department of Computer Science Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology September, 1989 Submits the Computer Science Department's policy. UofIdaho.policy University of Idaho's Ethics Policy UofMissouriC.policy U of Missouri-Columbia Computing Rules and with comments Reprinted from the _Campus_Computing_Newsletter_ of the University of Missouri- Columbia, Vol 16 Number 2, October 1988, pages 5-6. see also the COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT Statement on Academic Dishonesty (UMC.CS.policy) UofMissouriKC.policy Computer Ethics policy University of Missouri-Kansas City From UMKC, Access A New Era, January 1988. contact "Greg Johnson -aka CCGREG@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU" UofMissouriRolla.policy University of Missouri-Rolla, Computing Guidelines Published June 15, 1989 This statement references Missouri Revised Statutes. contact "Greg Johnson -aka CCGREG@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU" UofNewMexico.policy U of New Mexico based loosely on the Univ. of Washington's Ethics policy. It incorporates new statements in the area of research on self replicating code and is definitive about copyrights. UofPitt.policy Univ. of Pittsburgh User's Guide to Academic Computing, September 1987 (the latest handy). UofWales.policy U of Wales computing policy. UMC.CS.policy U of Missouri-Columbia Computer Science Department statement on academic dishonesty. WashU.Engr.policy The Center For Engineering Computing's Unix Instructional Account Policies ------------ Paper copies only: from CAUSE- CSD-0246 Baylor Univ. Policies. 1 page. CSD-0219 Loyla Univ. Policies long. ================= README ----------------- Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive This is an electronic library of information about computers and academic freedom. It is available via anonymous ftp to eff.org (192.88.144.3) in directory "academic". For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). ================= batch ----------------- This is a directory of notes that have been sent over the comp-academic-freedom mailing list. Each file is a list of one week's notes (in batch form). Also, see "news". ================= batchin ----------------- This is a list of all notes that have been sent over the comp-academic-freedom mailing list. The notes are in the batch (digest) format. ================= caf ----------------- A discription to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. ================= ecpa.1986 ----------------- Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related to e-mail privacy. ================= eff.rights ----------------- An overview of the electronic frontier and the U.S Bill of Rights ================= email.privacy.essay ----------------- "Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernadex ================= jmcabstract ----------------- Professor John McCarthy lead the effort to restore "rec.humor.funny" at Stanford. In March of 1991, he travelled to the University of Waterloo, a place where "rec.humor.funny" was (and still is) banned. At Waterloo, he gave one talk on a new computer language and a second talk on "Network Publication and Free Expression". This is the abstract of that talk. (Also, see "stanford.statements") ================= k12.networks.survey ----------------- Results of a survey by EDUCOM and IBM on the status of computer networking in K12 education. ================= library.canada ----------------- Canadian Library Association Statement on Intellectual Freedom ================= library.porn ----------------- A parody of a real newpaper article published in the Houston Chronicle. The parody is my Carl Kadie. It was published in rec.humor.funny. ================= library.us ----------------- The "Freedom to Read Statement" of the American Library Association and Association of American Publishers. ================= library.us.excerpts ----------------- Excepts from the "Freedom to Read Statement" of the American Library Association and Association of American Publishers. ================= listserv.tar ----------------- Listserv code for Unix We got the code from UCSD. We improved it (mostly with modifications to the Makefile). Sadly, there is no real documention. ================= ncsa.email ----------------- The National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) is a department in the University of Illinois' Graduate College. On April 1, 1991 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. This note has three parts. The first is a critique of the policy. The critique concludes that the policy is inconsistant with the Consitution, Academic Freedom, and University policy. The second part of this notes is the text of the policy. The third part is notes from a conversation with an NCSA Administrator. [On of April 23, 1991 (14 hours after this information was distributed), the NCSA as decided to revise its policy.] ================= news ----------------- This is a directory of all issues of the Computers and Academic Freedom News. ================= newsin ----------------- This is a list of all issues of the Computers and Academic Freedom News. ================= nsf ----------------- The tentative statement by the National Science Foundation on acceptable use of the backbone networks. ================= stanford.statements ----------------- "In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those computers." This file contains 1) the "Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny" 2) a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries 3) Notes from Professor John McCarthy on how censorship was fought at Stanford (also see "jmcabstract") ================= student.freedoms ----------------- Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main statement on student academic freedom. ================= uiuc.code.excerpts ----------------- Excerpts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Code on Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students (Aug. 1985) ================= widener ----------------- The computer polices of many schools. This is a directory of files. For a description of the file see file widener/Index. (The files are from the Computer Underground Digest archives, available via anonymous ftp from ftp.cs.widener.edu.) ================= ================= Last update Sat May 11 20:00:36 EDT 1991 ================================ ----from comp.windows.ms -- Frequently asked questions----- 4. Is it possible to use a mail server instead of ftp? There are a number of sites that archive the Usenet sources newsgroups and make them available via an email query system. You send a message to an automated server saying something like "send comp.sources.unix/fbm", and a few hours or days later you get the file in the mail. >> There are several sites that will perform general FTP retrievals for you in response to a similar mail query. For information on using one of them, send a message like this to info-server@cs.net : request: info topic: help-ftp request: end (NOTE: this server is currently "down for repairs". No estimate on when or if it will return.) And for info on another one, send this message to bitftp@pucc.bitnet : help Please be considerate, and don't over-use these services. If people start using them to retrieve hundreds of megabytes of GIF files, they will probably disappear. Date: Sun, 12 May 91 17:09:22 -0400 From: kadie (Carl Kadie) Message-Id: <9105122109.AA20340@eff.org> Subject: Re: Which rights? Summary: General comments Last week I posted a list of how academic freedom might be applied to computers and networks. Several folks critiqued the list. This note and the ones following it are a response to questions and comments of the critiques. For simplicity, I'm organizing the responses by topic rather than correspondent. Items from the original list are marked with a ">". The text of the critiques is marked with "]". (You can find the author particular comment by looking through the full-text CAF-batch archive. It is available via anonymous ftp from eff.org as file academic/batchin). ] While the Bill of Rights is a marvel in simplicity, your list of ] "academic freedoms" falls short on its first two issues due to excessive ] specificity. I agree that the list is no Bill of Rights; But hey, its only the first draft. Indeed, maybe we don't even need an explicit list of computer rights. Maybe it is enough to say "General principles of academic freedom shall be fully apply computers and networks." Or even better, "General principles of academic freedom shall be fully apply to every aspect of the University." I would note, however, that Case Western has a provision like this with regards to censorship, and yet a student was censored. Thus, if only as an academic exercise, it may be valuable to spell out exactly how the principles of academic freedom apply to computers and networks. The hardest part of enumerating rights is that: ] Policies which are suitable to ] rich organizations with plenty of resources can be completely ] inappropriate to operations running on a shoestring. For example, if the computing resource of a University consists of only five personal computers, is there any room for rights? This is a dilemma that I don't know the answer to, but here are some possible approaches: 1. Express the rights broadly enough that they cover everything from five personal computers to a University with at least one computer for every student and a network that connects everyone. 2. Assume some threshold of computing maturity. Just as not every school is a university and not every collection of books is a library, so it might be that not every set of computer resources is an X (we need a word for this). My fear is that universities will see this as a loophole and will explicitly say "Our computer resources are not an X, so the principles of academic freedom do not apply." A university is more prestigious than a trade school. A library is more prestigious than a departmental reading room. An X, however, is not yet more prestigious than a highly restricted set of computer resources. Ideally, system administrators would fight for computer rights the way that librarians fight for the freedom to read and professors fight for academic freedom. 3. Make having an X (i.e. computing resources to which the principles of academic freedom apply) a prerequisites for being a (good) University. Just as a University should have a library, it should also have an X. If it does not have an X (or a library, or doesn't respect the academic freedom of its students) it falls short of being a (good) University. - Carl Date: Sun, 12 May 91 18:31:36 -0400 From: kadie (Carl Kadie) Message-Id: <9105122231.AA20822@eff.org> Subject: Which Rights? Summary: Freedom of expression >Freedom of expression > freedom to receive electronic mail and receive newsgroups > freedom to send mail and post notes to newsgroups ] As long as the "freedom" is not any freer than for "paper" mail, i.e. ] If your department allows you to send the same letter on the ] University/department letterhead. If your department does not allow ] you to use the letterhead and you have to purchase your own personal ] stationary, it is equivalent to subscribing to a commercial ] uucp/usenet service. There are different kinds to costs. Some University costs are easily itemized, for example, stamps, laser printing, long distance telephone calls. Other costs are harder to itemize: local phone calls, use of a conference room, e-mail. With regard students to getting a room for a speaker to give a talk, the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says "The institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a device of censorship." I would say that if the University can figure out how to itemize costs (say, for coffee at the talk) then let them pass those costs on. But until they do, especially, if the incremental cost are low, the use of those resource should be considered one of the benefits of paying tuition or of teaching. [As an aside, what if a school is so short of space that it can not provide space to students would like to invite an outside speaker. Can that school be a good university?] ] Usenet is a useful tool for conducting certain kinds of academic research ] but is also widely perceived as the place where rec.humor and alt.sex reside. ] These newsgroups may be useful for psychologists and psychiatrists. But the ] reason a University does not want to carry them is very similar to the reason ] that a University Library normally does not carry XXX rated videos or Archie ] comics (except maybe in some places as special collections) The purpose of free expression and the freedom to read goes beyond what is needed to do formal research. Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students put it well: '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.' The American Library Association's Freedom to Read Statement says: 'The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. It is continuously under attack. Private groups and public authorities in various parts of the country are working to remove books from sale, to censor textbooks, to label "controversial" books, to distribute lists of "objectionable" books or authors, and to purge libraries. These actions apparently rise from a view that our national tradition of free expression is no longer valid; that censorship and suppression are needed to avoid the subversion of politics and the corruption of morals. We, as citizens devoted to the use of books and as librarians and publishers responsible for disseminating them, wish to assert the public interest in the preservation of the freedom to read. We are deeply concerned about these attempts at suppression. Most such attempts rest on a denial of the fundamental premise of democracy: that the ordinary citizen, by exercising his critical judgment, will accept the good and reject the bad. The censors, public and private, assume that they should determine what is good and what is bad for their fellow citizens.' [end of quote] On a more specific note, many academic libraries do carry Playboy. And they will accept almost any donation (absorbing the relatively small cost of cataloging and storing the material). This policy gives the residents of my community a chance to read the American Atheist's magazine and the John Birch Society's magazine. ] For instance. I used to be system manager at a mathematics dept. at ] a big ten school. We were consistently short on disk space (isn't ] everyone?). For that reason, I decided not to get a newsfeed of ] alt.sex.pictures, and not to go out of my way to install graphics ] viewers. If someone had found another way to read the group and started ] to save pictures, I would have spoken with them and asked them to remove ] the stuff. Why? not because the nudie pix were evil or anything, but ] because there just wasn't enough room to hold them. similarly I made ] it clear to a user who kept voluminous logs of soap opera discussion ] that he had to keep the size of his collection in check; whereas if the ] same user had generated big numerical math results it would have been ] just fine. so I guess I have to disagree with the implications of the ] "limits" argument you present; an effective system manager may have to ] take into account (in some general way) the contents of the data stored ] on disk, and make policies according to how it relates to the academic ] mission you are part of. I see limiting access of a newsgroup based on volume (e.g. alt.sex.pictures) as much better than limiting access based on content (e.g. alt.sex, rec.humor.funny.) The problem is (to use a poker expression) keeping the Sys Admin honest (not *you* of course, *other* sys admins). I see giving users a quota of disk space that they can assign to newsgroups as one possible mechanism. If disk space, is really, really, really short all bets are off. ] Finally this assumes that a department is willing to say that any newsgroup ] is valid to its research, which is what the equipment is to be used for. ] This is simply not true. Not all equipment in a department is funded for ] education, sometimes the equipment is donated or bought using funds that ] have strict limitations on its use. Thus allowing news or external e-mail ] access of any sort may be a violation of the equipment grant. Consider two scenarios: 1) A donor offers the University a new classroom building but only on the condition that no student or faculty organzations supporting gay rights be allowed to meet there. 2) A donor offers the University a new chip fabrication building with no classrooms or meeting space at all. Thus, no gay-rights organziations could meet there. In the first scenario, I would hope that that University would refuse the gift as being inconsistent with the Univerty's principles. In my opinion, the second scenario would be OK. Thus, I would modify the rights list to say something like If the incremental cost is small then there is a > right to receive electronic mail and receive newsgroups > right to send mail and post notes to newsgroups And, in any case, mail and newsgroups shall not be censored ] The right of freedom of speech (academic or not) does not incur a ] corresponding responsibility on anyone's part to provide the method ] and means with which to exercise that right. In other words, my ] freedom so speak doesn't mean that you have to pay for the soapbox. ] If a university wishes (for example) to not carry news, or to make ] news read-only, that's not an infringement of academic (or other) freedoms. ] Nor is it an infringement if the university chooses not to support ] off-campus e-mail, or to join one network instead of another, or to ] join none at all. I think we probably all hope that universities will ] choose to make news and mail as available as they can, given their ] limited resources; but I think it's reaching to elevate these conveniences ] to the same status as basic "rights". Under the principle of academic freedom, your tuition or work at a University *does* give you right to use certain resources to express your opinion (and to hear the opinion of others). Cost can be a legitimate reason for restricing resources, but the content of the opinion can not. (Thus, I can think of no legitimate reason for a university to make newsgroups read-only.) Date: Sun, 12 May 91 18:58:03 -0400 From: kadie (Carl Kadie) Message-Id: <9105122258.AA20974@eff.org> Subject: RE: Which rights? Summary: Privacy >Privacy > information in a users disk files is private > (the user may not own the disk, but he or she does own the information) > email is private > warrants must be obtained prior to searches ] Are the contents of your office wooden or steel desk private? Can the ] University remove or open your desk or file cabinet? Under what ] circumstances? ( I mean dEsk not dIsk) Are the contents your ] secretary's desk private? What if your secretary also happens to be a ] student? and ] I can't agree with your inclusion of privacy rights under the heading ] academic freedom. I work for a tax-supported university. All of the ] documents I create as part of my work, including letters, are the property ] of the university and are public documents. That is, access to the ] contents of those documents is a matter of university policy and has ] nothing to do with my personal privacy. I can't see that any different ] standard would apply to electronic documents. As matter of fact my desk is private. When I lived in the dorm, by dorm room was private. Here what the the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says: '1. Except under extreme emergency circumstances, premises occupied by students and the personal possessions of students should not be searched unless appropriate authorization has been obtained. For premises such as residence halls controlled by the institution, an appropriate and responsible authority should be designated to whom application should be made before a search is conducted. The application should specify the reasons for he search and the objects or information sought. The student should be present, if possible, during the search. For premises not controlled by the institution, the ordinary requirements for lawful search should be followed.' Here is what my Univerity's student code says: "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." Also, if you work for a public university you also have a constitutional right to privacy. [From the ACLU handbook on the rights of teachers] "An anonymous cartoon had appeared in a local newspaper ridiculing the financial and personnel policies of the Fair Lawn, New Jersey, Board of Education by depicting the board members a poker players, apparently gambling away emplyees' salaries and jobs. Suspecting the guidance counselor as the offending cartoonist, a board member entered the guidance counselor's school at night, found a janitor with a pass key, directed him to unlook the door to the guidance counselor's suite, and observing a slightly opened drawer in the guidance counselor's disk, pulled it completely open, revealing copies of the cartoon. The court ruled that this action violated the guidance counselor's Fourth Amendment rights." [This case is very similar to the incident which apparently motivated the NCSA's policy.] Date: Sun, 12 May 91 19:14:26 -0400 From: kadie (Carl Kadie) Message-Id: <9105122314.AA21105@eff.org> Subject: RE: Which rights? Summary: Due process >Access > Computer and network access shall not be denied without due process >Due Process > There is a general right to due process > notice must be given before new rules are enforced ] What do you mean by "due process"? Without a definition this statement has ] little semantic value. and ] i also have some difficulty in the interpretation of your "due process" ] clause. when I started as a system admin, there was no departmental ] "policy document" to speak of, and no real time to write one. I suspect ] that university policy would have kicked in if need had arisen, fortunately ] it didn't. Decisions were ad hoc at times, within the constraints of ] "what will the faculty advisors think" and "what will the chairman think". ] Lots of "new rules" were enforced as needed on a sort of seat of the ] pants basis, as I say there was no real time to codify them all. Had ] there been a real serious disagreement of opinion, I suppose I would have ] had to fall back on general department or college (or university) ] procedures. I think must students and faculty see having a note censored, a disk file search, a computer account taken away, access to the net taken away, etc, as serious penalties and are thus entitled to due process protection. Specifically, here is what the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says: A. Standards of Conduct Expected of Students The institution has an obligation to clarify those standards of behavior which it considers essential to its educational mission and its community life. These general behavioral expectations and the resultant specific regulations should represent a reasonable regulation of student conduct, but the student should be as free as possible from imposed limitations that have no direct relevance to his education. Offenses should be as clearly defined as possible and interpreted in a manner consistent with the aforementioned principles of relevance and reasonableness. Disciplinary proceedings should be instituted only for violations of standards of conduct formulated with significant student participation and published in advance through such means as a student handbook or a generally available body of institutional regulations. [Section B is about searches. See the earlier note.] C. Status of Student Pending Final Action Pending action on the charges, the status of a student should not be altered, or his right to be present on the campus and to attend classes suspended, except for reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and wellbeing, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students, faculty, or university property. D. Hearing Committee Procedures When the misconduct may result in serious penalties and if the student questions the fairness of disciplinary action taken against him, he should be granted, on request, the privilege of a hearing before a regularly constituted hearing committee. The following suggested hearing committee procedures satisfy the requirements of procedural due process in situations requiring a high degree of formality. 1. The hearing committee should include faculty members or students, or, if regularly included or requested by the accused, both faculty and student members. No member of the hearing committee who is otherwise interested in the particular case should sit in judgment during the proceeding. 2. The student should be informed, in writing of the reasons for the proposed disciplinary action with sufficient particularity, and in sufficient time, to insure opportunity to prepare for the hearing. 3. The student appearing before the hearing committee should have the right to be assisted in his defense by an adviser of his choice. 4. The burden of proof should rest upon the officials bringing the charge. 5. The student should be given an opportunity to testify and to present evidence and witnesses. He should have an opportunity to hear and question adverse witnesses. In no case should the committee consider statements against him unless he has been advised of their content and of the names of those who made them, and unless he has been given an opportunity to rebut unfavorable inferences which might otherwise be drawn. 6. All matters upon which the decision may be based must be introduced into evidence at the proceeding before the hearing committee. The decision should be based solely upon such matters. Improperly acquired evidence should not be admitted. 7. In the absence of a transcript, there should be both a digest and a verbatim record, such as a tape recording, of the hearing. 8. The decision of the hearing committee should be final, subject only to the student's right of appeal to the president or ultimately to the governing board of the institution.' Date: Sun, 12 May 91 19:52:47 -0400 From: kadie (Carl Kadie) Message-Id: <9105122352.AA21296@eff.org> Subject: Which Rights? Summary: Personal use > No general restrictions should be made on how the user uses those resources. ] This goes against the current academic standards. Restrictions against ] using academic resources for personal or commercial gain are an integral ] part of most academia. This is a valid general restriction, thus your ] right will immediately be invalidated. I am aware that most universities restrict commercial use of university resources (unless you cut them in). I accept this. In fact, for a state school, commercial use may be illegal. I am not aware of general prohibitions of personal, noncommercial use. Is it against the rules to read a magazine in the University library just for fun? My university does restrict the use of campus (paper) mail. This may be legitimate because delivering personal mail would have a significant effect on costs. Note, however, they should be fair and impartial in how such rules are applied (if they are a public institution, they must be fair and impartial). They shouldn't turn a blind eye to personal mail except when they are out to get someone. They shouldn't say that campus mail against unionization is ok, but campus mail for it is prohibited. Most organizations (even the NCSA) realize that personal use of computer communications is inevitable. In fact, most organization see it has desirable since it builds relationships and motivates people to learn to use the technology. It is very hard to draw a distinction between legitimate personal development and illegitimate personal development. What about using CPU cycles for personal uses like games or making shopping lists. Consider the use of classroom space. Classes have a higher priority, but the science fiction club can usually get space at night. I would hope that rather than a blanket prohibition, University's would allow some "free" use either at certain times of day or by giving users some quota of CPU to be used as they wish. - Carl Date: Sun, 12 May 91 20:11:23 -0400 From: kadie (Carl Kadie) Message-Id: <9105130011.AA21448@eff.org> Subject: Which Rights? Summary: Misc ] Here I want to propose another "freedom": there should be ] an appeals process against "bad" rules. Good point. Students and Faculty should have a voice in creating policy and in changing policy. Here is what the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says: 'C. Student Participation in Institutional Government As constituents of the academic community, students should be free, individually and collectively, to express their views on issues of institutional policy and on matters of general interest to the student body. The student body should have clearly defined means to participate in the formulation and application of institutional policy affecting academic and student affairs. The role of the student government and both its general and specific responsibilities should be made explicit. and the actions of the student government within the areas of its jurisdiction should be reviewed only through orderly and prescribed procedures.' > rights cannot be signed away ] Have you ever been admitted to a Hospital? :-) or obtained credit? :-) or ] served in the armed forces ? ]Anyone can sign rights away. When someone wants to retract their consent, the ] questions that a court asks include: ] a) Did the person knowingly sign them away? ] b) Was any physical coercion use? ] c) Was the period that the rights were signed away for an ] unreasonably long period? ] d) Was it lawful for the person to ask you to sign away your rights? A ploy that some institutions use is to make the user sign, as a condition of getting a computer account, a form that says "It is OK with me if y'all search my files anytime you want for no good reason or kick me off the system without telling me why." Such waivers should be abolished. Well, this is the last note of this round. I would like to see a dialog on these issues. Again your comments and criticisms are welcome. (Also, if someone posts a criticism, you are more than welcome to respond.) - Carl