Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) April, 1991 Vol. 1, No. 8 Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org) To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". [SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of April This is a compilation of the best notes from April. It includes the original announcement for the CAF archive and copies of general policy statements from the American Library Association, the Canadian Library Association, and the American Association of University Professors. It also includes reports of a victory for freedom of expression at Denver University, newsgroup censorship at Purdue and Case Western, and one-sided e-mail policy at the University of Illinois. - Carl] In this issue: Annoucing the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive Jim Sanders censored no more Library Policy kill bush kill quayle (2) Academic Freedom For Students -- the very idea What really happened at CWRU New NCSA e-mail policy inconsistent with Academic Freedom (2) 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 Back issues are available via anonymous ftp from eff.org. See file academic/README. Sender: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Precedence: bulk Return-Path: Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 10:54:13 EDT Subject: Annoucing the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive Status: R 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 (and scanos) contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). ================= caf-talk ----------------- 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. ================= 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) ================= ================= Last update Tue Apr 9 22:48:42 EDT 1991 Sender: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Precedence: bulk Return-Path: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 11:30:45 -0500 Subject: FYI: Jim Sanders censored no more Status: R Xref: m.cs.uiuc.edu alt.censorship:752 alt.conspiracy:1303 talk.politics.mideast:7685 Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!aburt Newsgroups: nyx.misc,alt.censorship,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.mideast Subject: Jim Sanders censored no more Message-ID: <1991Apr12.140541.8984@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> Date: 12 Apr 91 14:05:41 GMT Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Lines: 279 I feel like I'm about to step from the frying pan into the fire... Well, here's the verdict -- Jim Sanders will be allowed back on the air again. BUT READ THIS ALL BEFORE YOU FLAME... this is a very difficult matter, not a black and white issue; I'll try to convince you this is the "right" choice; or at least the lesser of two enormous evils. People are on both sides of the fence about this, of course, but please read through this all before flaming... (and if you can avoid flaming, please do!) We're trying to get this resolved in the way fairest to all concerned, "society as a whole" included. CLEARLY we can't please everyone; and there have been plenty of flames so far. So let's let this lengthy posting be the final one on the matter. I'll try to go through the history a bit, inject some personal opinions, and tell you DU's opinion, while I explain how decisions were made. Pertinent Background: Nyx is a public access system run by DU, specifically the Math/CS dept., wherein I (Andrew Burt) am a professor and system admin for our various departmental machines. Nyx is NOT an official project of the department or DU; it's all volunteer run and donation funded. I run Nyx on my own time; DU owns the hardware. DU does not "support" Nyx in any way other than pay the electricity and allow the use of old hardware that would otherwise be shut off. I started Nyx as a personal project, to give Unix/net access to the public; consider it a hobby of mine. DU tolerates it. Nyx is completely open to the public; it is completely free to users -- no charges. Anyone can sign up for an account. We have a full newsfeed, and allow posting to anyone. All users are asked to read the netiquette documents, which are made easily accessible (the whole thing is menu oriented). I believe Nyx provides a valuable community service, by making netnews accessible to many who would otherwise never know of it. Jim Sanders is one of the 3000+ people who've tried it. He has NOTHING to do with DU -- not a student, employee, anything. (And, as it goes, he's the only user we've had any kind of "problem" with.) We have a disclaimer as users log in that reads: Disclaimer: The University of Denver disclaims everything it can relating to Nyx. DU doesn't support Nyx in any way. There. We said it. DU's policy for its students, staff, etc., forbids doing anything "inconsiderate" with a usercode. Also, DU is a private school, with a nominal Methodist affiliation. (Though I haven't a clue how many Methodists are in high places. I doubt it's much more than a nominal affiliation. I'm not Methodist at any rate, nor are the few people whose affiliations I am aware of.) And bear in mind that DU shut down the school paper for several months last year because it ran blatantly offensive, sexually biased "advertisements". Well, not ads, but the back page was sort of a free-for-all; folks paid to say whatever they wanted, and it wasn't censored. Some of the remarks were patently offensive, and the staff didn't seem to care. They were also in the red financially. So they just shut it down, fired all the workers; it has just recently resumed publishing (mid-March). What Jim Sanders did: Jim Sanders began posting pretty inflammatory material, heavily criticizing lawyers, oilmen, etc. Later, the criticisms were leveled at one particular ethnic/religious group, namely Jewish people. His postings were of personal opinion mixed with quotes from various published sources. They often included considerable profanity (even after being asked to stop). Further postings in his name appeared apologizing for the original notes. He alleged he did not send them; or sent the wrong file; even though postings weeks earlier promised these files would be posted. He later alleged that his account had been violated (I found no local evidence of this, but forging e-mail and postings is simple enough without that). At any rate, he began posting from the account of Evan Ravitz, apparently a business associate of his. Since eravitz's account predates jsanders, I presume eravitz gave jsanders his password to use. (I don't see this as an issue, however -- since jsanders could have signed up under any name at all just like a new user would. I remove obvious phony accounts like 'mmouse', but a qsmith or whatever wouldn't get removed.) Additionally, he posted the same files on a regular basis, a basic breach of netiquette. What other people did: With his anti-semitic postings, tempers flared wildly. Many people, including people from inside DU, voiced their outrage at his postings (lots of adjectives were used... "filth", "trash", "anti-semitic drivel", and on and on). The outrage was both directed at his opinions and at the fact that DU/Nyx's-system-admin (me) would allow such postings. Everyone stated their displeasure with his postings. Most asked that Jim Sanders not only be told that his behavior was not appropriate for the net but also that he be stopped, or asked to stop. I read the net articles in response to his, and saw articles saying he shouldn't be allowed to say what he said, but none (over the couple days that I watched anyway) saying "no, that's censorship, don't do it". The general consensus on the net seemed to be that his postings were absolutely ludicrous and a waste of net bandwidth, not to mention that he was "breaking" many net "rules" of conduct. Some netlanders even contacted DU administrative officials to complain about the situation. This is when the real problems started. DU brass are not computer people. They don't understand bulletin boards, let alone the Usenet anarchy; they're not sure DU even should be involved with a "BBS" type system. What DU did: Legally, DU has the right to decide what postings are allowed or not allowed from DU property, which Nyx's hardware is. The initial reaction was to apply the same regulations to Nyx-originated postings that apply to all other systems -- again, not to allow postings that are construed as inconsiderate, into which category racist and profane postings clearly are. Indeed, some DU brass had a MAJOR fit about this -- and talked of shutting Nyx down (remember, DU has reservations about running Nyx in the first place; racist postings "from" DU don't help, and this is how it was presented to them by some net folks, or is at least how they understood it; they were told "DU students are sending obscene messages"). It would certainly silence Jim Sanders to kill Nyx; but it would also be a loss to the community. Remember, this sounds a lot like the newspaper issue. People being offensive, nobody doing anything about it, etc. From a school with a religious affiliation to "answer to", "uphold", phrase it how you will. So the basic idea was: if I don't shut Jim Sanders down, Nyx is shut down. To prevent Nyx from being shut down, and feeling that (a) he had broken net rules, and (b) he had gotten his message out (over and over in fact) -- so I wasn't really preventing him from airing his views (I mean, he had done so for a while and was only being redundant) -- I chose the lesser evil. I asked Jim Sanders not to post, and enforced this restriction at the software level. Since he could easily get back on under another name, I monitored outgoing postings to verify he didn't post (he didn't). I didn't intend to censor anything else; and nothing was censored at all. Jim Sanders did not attempt to post once asked not to. [begin personal opinion:] I *personally* am totally against censorship. I thought it was pretty ironic to get called a nazi fascist pig censor! I told Jim Sanders many times that I disagreed with his opinions vehemently, but I believed in and would defend his right to express them. I did not WANT to censor him, but I didn't want Nyx shut down either. It skates on thin ice as it is. And he'd made his point thoroughly anyway; so while an evil, it looked better to keep Nyx -- I mean, Jim Sanders loses the ability to post from Nyx either way. I firmly believe in freedom of speech; after further discussion here, and with the help of overwhelming net protests against censorship, I have gotten DU to agree that freedom of speech is more important than silencing offensive speech. DU as a whole in no way supports the views of ANY Nyx users, Jim Sanders included. (Indeed, I have added a "Disclaimer:" header to all Nyx postings stating exactly this point. Too many people seemed to assume that DU supported jsander's views simply because it came from a DU system. Silly, but true.) Rationale for final decision: I could offer the "easy" way out, and point out that Jim Sanders could have been cut off for knowingly breaking net rules. But that too would be censorship, in the same vein as convicting Al Capone on tax evasion was convicting him for his other crimes. Further, it *is* DU's system. DU is a private school, and can decide what constitutes inappropriate use of its hardware. DU has the right to censor postings. Again, this is an easy way out. If Nyx is truly a public system, all the views of the public should be allowed, no matter how offensive to groups or incredibly ridiculous readers may find them. If the posting was clearly illegal, that's different (e.g., posting credit card numbers). Nyx will, however, adopt the stance that it is simply a carrier, and not responsible for the postings of its users; like the phone company isn't responsible for, e.g., drug deals done by phone. Some folks might say "we pay for our newsfeed, and don't want to waste our money on this." I think the best analogy here is to a newspaper. If a newspaper carried a story you found offensive, you wouldn't get a refund of 1% because you disliked one of the 100 articles. You bought the whole paper, both good and offensive. (You could cancel your subscription, or not buy it again -- with respect to netnews, you can drop your feed or quit reading some groups; or put jsanders in your kill file. The "Just say 'n'." approach. Or get the net to agree that we need alt.jsanders, get him to post only there, then don't carry it.) But say jsanders posts one offensive article a day (to err on the high side), that's what, one article out of 20,000; maybe you pay, what, $5/day for news (sounds high, would cover the cost of a uunet feed) -- then jsanders cost you $.00025. You undoubtedly lose more money than that in work time lost worrying about it. Some said "this isn't tolerable on a government supported network". Well, the government is MORE likely to support it under the freedom of speech amendment than is a private network. Government support doesn't mean the government supports every opinion expressed -- no more than DU or I support Nyx users' opinions. Another tack was "posting is a privilege, not a right". Agreed, but revoking the privilege simply because it contains highly unpopular opinions isn't fair. Perhaps his opinions are "over the line" -- but who's to judge? Me, or the whole net? I never wanted to be the judge; that leaves the net. Did he abuse the privilege in other ways? Profanity? Well, we all do it, it's part of being human; again, the net can judge. Apologizing then not apologizing, etc.? It still isn't clear who posted what, if any forged articles were sent. I can't hold that against Jim Sanders. Posting for different accounts? Well, he thought his account had been hacked into and presumably wanted to prove he hadn't posted the next allegedly forged message. Besides, it's better that he uses his real name (I presume it IS his real name, but no matter) than a lot of pseudonyms. What about the issue of "his postings are WAAAAAY out of line"? Well, that's for you to decide and argue with him about. YOU decide, not me. I won't decide for you. [Let me suggest this: If everyone really hates his postings so much, let's just NOBODY reply to them. If he's ignored, he'll likely go away. I argued with him once; he ignored my argument, so I quit arguing. Now I personally just ignore his postings.] Complaints on this matter have really been swamping my mailbox. First it was "shut jsanders up"; then "don't shut jsanders up". I would say, though I didn't count, that the anti-censorship letters were 5 to 10 times as many as the pro-censorship letters. Most people who said let him speak made one or more of the following points: - they disagreed with him entirely - they felt he had a right to his opinions - they would rather be the judge of his opinions than a censor - censorship was far worse than offensive opinions - he wrote nothing illegal -- no slander, no libel - they felt the net folks as a whole were pretty intelligent, and nobody would be likely to buy his ideas anyway, or at least he was unlikely to convert anyone to his ideas - private (legal) censorship whittles away our rights too, just like government censorship - silencing him only makes him a martyr - silencing him only helps prove his point about group X controlling the world Plus: - a couple people said they thought his postings were "interesting" - one person even agreed wholeheartedly with him - some said they like to watch the fireworks All critics of the censorship decision presented good arguments against censorship, no matter how offensive the material was. The critics of jsanders in favor of censorship, presented weaker arguments, which I've discussed above. Conclusion: On balance, the cost of freedom of speech is allowing the speech you disagree with. So to wrap this up, I personally disagree with jsanders writings. But I respect his right to say it. I want to keep Nyx a place where people can express their opinions freely. If you disagree, fine, I respect that. But please accept the judgement of the net and DU, which is what I consider the outcome to be. Please don't try to subvert it, or Nyx, by, e.g., bitching to DU officials, filling up jsanders mbox with megabytes of XXX's or whatever. (Someone did that. It never got to jsanders because it filled up our disk and I had to delete it; royally screwed things up, ticked me off bad.) Try Nyx before you condemn it; and regardless, don't take matters into your own hands trying to shut jsanders down, that just hurts the hundreds of other regular Nyx users, and makes you guilty of censorship. If you want to argue with him, please do. Keep it to words, not actions though. Keep it a clean fight. Remember that a lot of people want him to be able to post whatever nonsense he wants to, even though they nearly all disagree with him. Any replies should be mailed to me, as I don't really read these groups. Again, if you can let it rest now, please do. -- Andrew Burt uunet!isis!aburt or aburt@du.edu "Kwyjibo on the loose!" >From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Tue Apr 16 14:37:12 1991 Sender: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Precedence: bulk Return-Path: Date: Tue, 16 Apr 91 14:05:03 EDT Subject: Library Policy Dudley Irish writes: The association that librarians belong to has a policy that addresses this. Would anyone care to see if they can find a copy of this that is on line? I'm enclosing a copy of the US and Canadian library policies. (A list of similar documents are available via anonymous ftp from eff.org in file academic/README) ===== [Joint statement by: the American Library Association and Association of American Publishers. Adopted May 1953] FREEDOM TO READ STATEMENT 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. We trust Americans to recognize propaganda, and to reject it. We do not believe they need the help of censors to assist them in this task. We do not believe they are prepared to sacrifice their heritage of a free press in order to be "protected" against what others think may be bad for them. We believe they still favor free enterprise in ideas and expression. We are aware, of course, that books are not alone in being subjected to efforts at suppression. We are aware that these efforts are related to a larger pattern of pressures being brought against education, the press, films, radio and television. The problem is not only one of actual censorship. The shadow of fear cast by these pressures leads, we suspect, to an even larger voluntary curtailment of expression by those who seek to avoid controversy. Such pressure toward conformity is perhaps natural to a time of uneasy change and pervading fear. Especially when so many of our apprehensions are directed against an ideology, the expression of a dissident idea becomes a thing feared in itself, and we tend to move against it as against a hostile deed, with suppression. And yet suppression is never more dangerous than in such a time of social tension. Freedom has given the United States the elasticity to endure strain. Freedom keeps open the path o novel and creative solutions, and enables change to come by choice. Every silencing of a heresy, every enforcement of an orthodoxy, diminishes the toughness and resilience of our society and leaves it the less able to deal with stress. Now as always in our history, books are among our greatest instruments of freedom. They are almost the only means for making generally available ideas or manners of expression that can initially command only a small audience. They are the natural medium for the new idea and the untried voice from which come the original contributions to social growth. They are essential to the extended discussion which serious thought requires, and to the accumulation of knowledge and ideas into organized collections. We believe that free communication is essential to the preservation of a free society and a creative culture. We believe that these pressures towards conformity present the danger of limiting the range and variety of inquiry and expression on which our democracy and our culture depend. We believe that every American community must jealously guard the freedom to publish and to circulate, in order to preserve its own freedom to read. We believe that publishers and librarians have a profound responsibility to give validity to that freedom to read by making it possible for the readers to choose freely from a variety of offerings. The freedom to read is guaranteed by the Constitution. Those with faith in free will stand firm on these constitutional guarantees of essential rights and will exercise the responsibilities that accompany these rights. We therefore affirm these propositions: 1. It is in the public interest for publishers and librarians to make available the widest diversity of views and expressions, including those which are unorthodox or unpopular with the majority. Creative thought is by definition new, and what is new is different. The bearer of every new thought is a rebel until his idea is refined and tested. Totalitarian systems attempt to maintain themselves in power by the ruthless suppression of any concept which challenges the established orthodoxy. The power of a democratic system to adapt to change is vastly strengthened by the freedom of its citizens to choose widely from among conflicting opinions offered freely to them. To stifle every nonconformist idea at birth would mark the end of the democratic process Furthermore, only through the constant activity of weighing and selecting can the democratic mind attain the strength demanded by times like these. We need to know not only what we believe but why we believe it. 2. Publishers, librarians and booksellers do not need to endorse every idea or presentation contained in the books they make available. It would conflict with the public interest for them to establish their own political moral or aesthetic views as a standard for determining what books should be published or circulated. Publishers and librarians serve the educational process by helping to make available knowledge and ideas required for the growth of the mind and the increase of learning. They do not foster education by imposing as mentors the patterns of their own thought. The people should have the freedom to read and consider a broader range of ideas than those that may be held by any single librarian or publisher or government or church. It is wrong that what one man can read should be confined to what another thinks proper. 3. It is contrary to the public interest for publishers or librarians to determine the acceptability of a book on the basis of the personal history or political affiliations of the author. A book should be judged as a book. No art or literature can flourish if it is to be measured by the political views or private lives of its creators. No society of free men can flourish which draws up lists of writers to whom it will not listen, whatever they may have to say. 4. There is no place in our society for efforts to coerce the taste of others, to confine adults to the reading matter deemed suitable for adolescents, or to inhibit the efforts of writers to achieve artistic expression. To some, much of modern literature is shocking. But is not much of life itself shocking? We cut off literature at the source if we prevent writers from dealing with the stuff of life. Parents and teachers have a responsibility to prepare the young to meet the diversity of experiences in life to which they will be exposed, as they have a responsibility to help them learn to think critically for themselves. These are affirmative responsibilities, not to be discharged simply by preventing them from reading works for which they are not yet prepared. In these matters taste differs, and taste cannot be legislated; nor can machinery be devised which will suit the demands of one group without limiting the freedom of others. 5. It is not in the public interest to force a reader to accept with any book the prejudgment of a label characterizing the book or author as subversive or dangerous. The ideal of labeling presupposes the existence of individuals or groups with wisdom to determine by authority what is good or bad for the citizen. It presupposes that each individual must be directed in making up his mind about the ideas he examines. But Americans do not need others to do their thinking for them. 6. It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians, as guardians of the people's freedom to read, to contest encroachments upon that freedom by individuals or groups seeking to impose their on standards or tastes upon the community at large. It is inevitable in the give and take of the democratic process that the political, the moral, or the aesthetic concepts of an individual or group will occasionally collide with those of another individual or group. In a free society each individual is free to determine for himself what he wishes to read, and each group is free to determine what it will recommend to its freely associated members. But no group has the right to take the law into its own hands, and to impose its own concept of politics or morality upon other members of a democratic society. Freedom is no freedom if it is accorded only to the accepted and the inoffensive. 7. It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians to give full meaning to the freedom to read by providing books that enrich the quality and diversity of thought and expression. By the exercise of this affirmative responsibility bookmen can demonstrate that the answer to a bad book is a good one, the answer to a bad idea is a good one. The freedom to read is of little consequence when expended on the trivial; it is frustrated when the reader cannot obtain matter fit for his purpose. What is needed is not only the absence of restraint, but the positive provision of opportunity for the people to read the best that has been thought and said. Books are the major channel by which the intellectual inheritance is handed down, and the principal means of its testing and growth. The defense of their freedom and integrity, and the enlargement of their service to society, requires of all bookmen the utmost of their faculties, and deserves of all citizens the fullest of their support. We state these propositions neither lightly nor as easy generalizations. We here stake out a lofty claim for the value of books. We do so because we believe that they are good, possessed of enormous variety and usefulness, worthy of cherishing and keeping free. We realize that the application of these propositions may mean the dissemination of ideas and manners of expression that are repugnant to many persons. We do not state these propositions in the comfortable belief that what people read is unimportant. We believe rather that what people read is deeply important; that ideas can be dangerous; but that the suppression of ideas is fatal to a democratic society. Freedom itself is a dangerous way of life, but it is ours. Joint statement by: American Library Association Association of American Publishers Adopted May, 1953. ------------------ Library Bill of Rights The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services. 1. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation. 2. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. 3. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. 4. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas. 5. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views. 6. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use. Adopted June 18, 1948. Amended February 2, 1961, June 27, 1967, and January 23, 1980, by the ALA Council. >From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Wed Apr 17 14:04:26 1991 Sender: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Precedence: bulk Return-Path: <@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:STANKULI@UWF.BITNET> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 91 11:07:23 CST Subject: kill bush kill quayle Status: R i just started reading this group, but i assume a case study concerning electronic freedom is in order? a couple years ago i was on the faculty at purdue, doing some research which involved extensive use of the computer services. they had a censor who screened all outgoing usenet news feeds and abruptly pulled anything off the nets that he did not like. i had several submissions pulled because of some tedious local constraints on form and content. the last one he yanked because he thought i had posted it to the wrong group... he felt the content belonged on comp.legal or some such, rather than the group that i read everyday. well, i was friends with an engineering graduate student. he could be described as ultraliberal and a touch paraniod. he was a curious mix-- active member of a palestinian rights group, homophobic, and a naval reserve officer. he had an account in one of the engineering systems with a GUI interface. he said he felt that the system operators were always monitoring his accounts which he felt was an invasion of his personal security. anyway, way down in his heirarchical file structure he created an empty folder entitled 'KILL BUSH KILL QUAYLE'. just an empty folder, nothing in it. shortly after he had done this, he told me he had to see if they were watching him. well, a couple weeks later, he came home one day to find the secret service ransacking his apartment. to be honest, his apartment was one of the messiest i have ever seen, so it did not look much different afterward. the ss guys asked him a lot of questions, especially one of them asked if he was writing any computer games. they took some notes and left. then the FBI started phoning him, requesting appointments which he refused. the local lafayette police department started showing up on his doorstep to let him know they were watching. i do not know if his account ever got frozen or pulled, but i know he was getting warnings from the system people on the amount of proprietary macintosh software he was storing there-- about 18 meg as i recall. some of it was due to CAD software he was betatesting. i don't know what generalizations should come from this experience. the system people were obviously monitoring his file structures. whether this is a routine process, like system backup, or something special tagged to certain users-- i do not know. when i left purdue, i was glad to get out from under the noticeable censorship of news group postings. i'd bet this message would have been yanked if i had sent it from there. i met some system people there who were genuinely helpful, but there were others who were pretty heavy-handed in their sense of user control. okay, that is your case study. where lies the right and wrong? stan . stankuli@UWF.bitnet === | | close your eyes, my darling, or three of them at least --- -- old venusian lullaby >From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Wed Apr 17 14:18:48 1991 Sender: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Precedence: bulk Return-Path: Posted-Date: Wed, 17 Apr 91 13:40:41 EDT Subject: Re: kill bush kill quayle Date: Wed, 17 Apr 91 13:40:41 EDT Organization: Cardiothoracic Imaging Research Center, Hospital of UPenn X-Queued-Mail: 585messages X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Status: R > a couple years ago i was on the faculty at purdue, doing some research which >involved extensive use of the computer services. they had a censor who >screened all outgoing usenet news feeds and abruptly pulled anything off the >nets that he did not like. i had several submissions pulled because of some >tedious local constraints on form and content. the last one he yanked because >he thought i had posted it to the wrong group... he felt the content belonged >on comp.legal or some such, rather than the group that i read everyday. Well, this should be interesting. :-) I was the person who was the news administrator described above, but I have a different view of the situation. First off, I never removed an article because I "did not like" it. If I had done so, I would have been far too busy to any real work. I did, however, for a time, monitor all outbound articles from our site, and pulled those which grossly failed to conform to the guidelines for news usage posted to news.announce.newusers. Those guidelines were (1) reposted locally (2) available in a directory on every machine that handled news (3) referred to in the user's guide for the site (4) summarized in a "local" style guide that augmented them with a few "local usage" conventions and (5) referred to by the "Pnews" program, used by most users to post news. In other words, those guidelines were widely publicized, as was what would happen if they weren't followed. Why was this done? It was done because the site in question had thousands of users, many of whom posted news, and some of those folks posted articles to highly inappropriate groups (based on the group charters in the article "List of Active Newsgroups", which is posted monthly), or they overquoted previous articles, or did other things which are considered antisocial on Usenet. This in turn resulted in a great deal of mail being sent to the news administrator (me) complaining about these problems. So, after about a year and a half of trying to simply educate people w/o taking any action, I started keeping an eye on what went out in order to try and reduce the number of complaints that I had to deal with. I'll point out here that this represents a context-based restriction, not a content-based restriction. Simply put, I couldn't care less what anyone had to say, as long as they said it in the right place (Usenet newsgroup). Secondly, any article which was removed from the outbound queue was returned to the author with an explanation of why it was deleted, and usually (if I had time) suggestions on what needed to be done to it in order to make it acceptable to the rest of Usenet, and a pointer to the "netiquette" rules, so that they could acquaint themselves with them. Now, if it had been my intention to "censor" folks, I certainly wouldn't have told them what I was doing. I would have simply caused the article to vanish at all sites *except* the one we were at, and the user would probably have never noticed what happened. I probably would not have let articles that were critical of me or my site get through, either. Thirdly, there came a time when the use of Usenet news at the site came under critical scrutiny by some highly-placed folks at Purdue. If it had been my intention to silence anyone (everyone), I certainly wouldn't have defended it as vocally as I did. It would have been far easier to remain silent, or to take the side of those who wished to remove all or part of Usenet news. ---Rsk >From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Wed Apr 17 18:12:56 1991 Sender: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Precedence: bulk Return-Path: Date: Wed, 17 Apr 91 17:22:13 EDT Subject: Academic Freedom For Students -- the very idea Status: R The AAUP, the largest supporter of academic freedom for faculty, also recognizes academic freedom from students. These rights go beyond constitutional rights (but do not as far as faculty rights). For your reading pleasure, here is the AAUP statement. [From AAUP Policy Documents and Reports, 1977 Edition] Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students In June, 1967, a joint committee, comprised of representatives from the American Association of University Professors, U. S. National Student Association, Association of American College, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and National Association of Woman Deans and Counselors, met in Washington, D.C., and drafted the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students published below. Since its formulation, the Joint Statement has been endorsed by each of its five national sponsors, as well as by a number of other professional bodies. The Association's Council approved the Statement in October, 1967, and the Fifty-fourth Annual Meeting endorsed it as Association policy. Preamble 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. Institutional procedures for achieving these purposes may vary from campus to campus, but the minimal standards of academic freedom of students outlined below are essential to any community of scholars. Freedom to teach and freedom to learn are inseparable facets of academic freedom. The freedom to learn depends upon appropriate opportunities and conditions in the classroom, on the campus, and in the larger community Students should exercise their freedom with responsibility. The responsibility to secure and o respect general conditions conducive to the freedom to learn is shared by all members of the academic community. Each college and university has a duty to develop policies and procedures which provide and safeguard this freedom. Such policies a procedures should be developed at each institution within the framework of general standards and with the broadest possible participation of the members of the academic community. The purpose of this statement is to enumerate the essential provisions for student freedom to learn. 1. Freedom of Access to Higher Education The admissions policies of each college and university are a matter of institutional choice provided that each college and university makes clear the characteristics and expectations of students which it considers relevant to success in the institution's program. While church-related institutions may give admission preference to students of their own persuasion, such a preference should be clearly and publicly stated. Under no circumstances should a student be barred >from admission of a particular institution on the basis of race. Thus, within the limits of its facilities, each college and university should be open to all students who are qualified according to is admission standards. The facilities and services of a college should be open to all of its enrolled students, and institutions should use their influence to secure equal access for all students to public facilities in the local community. II. In the Classroom The professor in the classroom and in conference should encourage free discussion, inquiry, and expression Student performance should be evaluated solely on an academic basis, not on opinions or conduct in matters unrelated to academic standards. A. Protection of Freedom of Expression Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion, but they are responsible for learning the content of any course of study for which they are enrolled. B. Protection against Improper Academic Evaluation Students should have protection through orderly procedures against prejudiced or capricious academic evaluation. At the same time, they are responsible for maintaining standards of academic performance established for each course in which they are enrolled. C. Protection against Improper Disclosure Information about student views, beliefs, and political associations which professors acquire in the course of their work as instructors, advisers, and counselors should be considered confidential. Protection against improper disclosure is a serious professional obligation. Judgments of ability and character may be provided under appropriate circumstances, normally with the knowledge or consent of the student. III. Student Records Institutions should have a carefully considered policy as to the information which should be part of a student's permanent educational record and as to the conditions of its disclosure. To minimize the risk of improper disclosure, academic and disciplinary record should be separate, and the conditions of access to each should be set forth in an explicit policy statement. Transcripts of academic records should contain only information about academic status. Information >from disciplinary or counseling files should not be available to unauthorized persons on campus, or to any person off campus without the express consent of the student involved except under legal compulsion or in cases where the safety of persons or property is involved. No records should be kept which reflect the political activities or beliefs of students. Provisions should also be made for periodic routine destruction of nonconcurrent disciplinary records. Administrative staff and faculty members should respect confidential information about students which they acquire in the course of their work. IV. Student Affairs In student affairs, certain standards must be maintained if the freedom of students is to be preserved. A. Freedom of Association Students bring to the campus a variety of interests previously acquired and develop many new interests as members of the academic community. They should be free to organize and join associations to promote their common interests. 1. The membership, policies, and actions of a student organization usually will be determined by vote of only those persons who hold bona fide membership in the college or university community. 2. Affiliation with an extramural organization should not of itself disqualify a student organization from institutional recognition. 3. If campus advisers are required, each organization should be free to choose its own adviser, and institutional recognition should not be withheld or withdrawn solely because of the inability of a student organization to secure an advisor. Campus advisers may advise organizations in the exercise of responsibility, but they should not have the authority to control the policy of such organizations. 4. Student organizations may be required to submit a statement of purpose, criteria for membership, rules of procedures, and a current list of officers. They should not be required to submit a membership list as a condition of institutional recognition. 5. Campus organizations, including those affiliated with an extramural organization, should be open to all students without respect to race, creed, or national origin, except for religious qualifications which may be required by organizations whose aims are primarily sectarian. B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression 1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions publicly and privately. They should always be free to support causes by orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential operation of the institution. At the same time, it should be made clear to the academic and the larger community that in their public expressions or demonstrations students or student organizations speak only for themselves. 2. Students should be allowed to invite and to hear any person of their own choosing. Those routine procedures required by an institution before a guest speaker is invited to appear on campus should be designed only to insure that there is orderly scheduling of facilities and adequate preparation for the event, and that the occasion is conducted in a manner appropriate to an academic community. The institutional 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. 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. D. Student Publications Student publications and the student press are a valuable aid in establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and responsible discussion and of intellectual exploration on the campus. They are a means of bringing student concerns to the attention of the faculty and the institutional authorities and of formulating student opinion on various issues on the campus and in the world at large. Whenever possible the student newspaper should be an independent corporation financially and legally separate >from the university. Where financial and legal autonomy is not possible, the institution, as the publisher of student publications, may have to bear the legal responsibility for The contents of the publications. In the delegation of editorial responsibility to students, the institution must provide sufficient editorial freedom and financial autonomy for the student publications to maintain their integrity of purpose as vehicles for free inquiry and free expression in an academic community. Institutional authorities, in consultation with students and faculty, have a responsibility to provide written clarification of the role of the student publications, the standards to be used in their evaluation, and the limitations on external control of their operation. At the same time, the editorial freedom of student editors and managers entails corollary responsibilities to be governed by the canons of responsible journalism, such as the avoidance of libel, indecency, undocumented allegations, attacks on personal integrity, and the techniques of harassment and innuendo. As safeguards for the editorial freedom of student publications the following provisions are necessary. 1. The student press should be free of censorship and advance approval of copy, and its editors and managers should be free to develop their own editorial policies and news coverage. 2. Editors and managers of student publications should be protected >from arbitrary suspension and removal because of student, faculty, administrative, or public disapproval of editorial policy or content. Only for proper and stated causes should editors and managers be subject to removal and then by orderly and prescribed procedures. The agency responsible for the appointment of editors and managers should be the agency responsible for their removal. 3. All university published and financed student publications should explicitly state on the editorial page that the opinions there expressed are not necessarily those of the college, university, or student body. V. Off-Campus Freedom of Students A. Exercise of Rights of Citizenship College and university students are both citizens and members of the academic community. As citizens, students should enjoy the same freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and right of petition that other citizens enjoy and, as members of the academic community, they are subject to the obligations which accrue to them by virtue of this membership. Faculty members and administrative officials should insure that institutional powers are not employed to inhibit such intellectual and personal development of students as is often promoted by their exercise of the rights of citizenship both on and off campus. B. Institutional Authority and Civil Penalties Activities of students may upon occasion result in violation of law. In such cases, institutional officials should be prepared to apprise students of sources of legal counsel and may offer other assistance. Students who violate the law may incur penalties prescribed by civil authorities, but institutional authority should never be used merely to duplicate the function of general laws. Only where the institutions interests as an academic community are distinct and clearly involved should the special authority of the institution be asserted. The student who incidentally violates institutional regulations in the course of his off-campus activity, such as those relating to class attendance, should be subject to no greater penalty than would normally be imposed. Institutional action should be independent of community pressure. VI. Procedural Standards in Disciplinary Proceedings In developing responsible student conduct, disciplinary proceedings play a role substantially secondary to example, counseling, guidance, and admonition. At the same time, educational institutions have a duty and the corollary disciplinary powers to protect their educational purpose through the setting of standards of scholarship and conduct for the students who attend them and through the regulation of the use of institutional facilities. In the exceptional circumstances when the preferred means fail to resolve problems of student conduct, proper procedural safeguards should be observed to protect the student from the unfair imposition of serious penalties. The administration of discipline should guarantee procedural fairness to an accused student. Practices in disciplinary cases may vary in formality with the gravity of the offense and the sanctions which may be applied. They should also take into account the presence or absence of an honor code, and the degree to which the institutional officials have direct acquaintance with student life in general and with the involved student and the circumstances of the case in particular. The jurisdictions of faculty or student judicial bodies, the disciplinary responsibilities of institutional officials and the regular disciplinary procedures, including the student's right to appeal a decision, should be clearly formulated and communicated in advance. Minor penalties may be assessed informally under prescribed procedures. In all situations, procedural fair play requires that the student be informed of the nature of the charges against him, that he be given a fair opportunity to refute them, that the institution not be arbitrary in its actions, and that there be provision for appeal of a decision. The following are recommended as proper safeguards in such proceedings when there are no honor codes offering comparable guarantees. 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. B. Investigation of Student Conduct 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. 2. Students detected or arrested in the course of serious violations of institutional regulations, or infractions of ordinary law, should be informed of their rights. No form of harassment should be used by institutional representatives to coerce admissions of guilt or information about conduct of other suspected persons. 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. >From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Wed Apr 17 21:34:15 1991 Sender: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Precedence: bulk Return-Path: Date: 17 Apr 91 20:43:00 EST Subject: What really happened at CWRU Cc: junger@cwru.cwru.edu Status: R Dan Brown has raised--in a rather misleading way--a case involving the censorship by the local network administrators of the work product of a law student here at Case Western Reserve University. One of the most misleading features of Dan Brown's message is, of course, the explicit assumption that research has to be "sanctioned" before it fits into the "academic freedom category." Since all education begins with self-education--and too often ends there--it seems clear to me that all members of the academic community, whether students or faculty or those holding research appointments, are entitled at the minimum to study whatever they deem to be relevant to their interests--and to publish the results of such studies--without being subject to censorship and harassement by employees of the university (or other academic institution) who are neither students nor the holders of academic appointments. It is the individual scholars who must select their area of research, not the department of buildings and grounds nor the managers of the local network. I do not believe that anyone within the academic community would seriously question those conclusions in a case that did not involve computers. When computers are involved, however, the fact that most faculty members--quite understandably--neither understand nor use such devices, leaves the typical user (who almost always will be a student) at the mercy of those who are supposed to support the use of this new technology. Certainly that is the case at Case Western Reserve University, where all the undergraduate dorms are connected by optical cables to the Internet, but no faculty offices--except oddly enouugh those in the law school--have yet been so connected. I am thus horrified at, but not surprised by, the position taken by Dudley Irish--dirish@math.utah.edu, Manager Computer Operations Center for Scientific Computing, Department of Mathematics, University of Utah--to the effect that "the student had no right to use the university's equipment to publish his `research', that his academic freedoms had not been violated, and that the Student Behavior Committee should consider expelling him." I fear that someone with Dudley Irish's obvious dislike of students would come to such a nasty conclusion even if he knew the facts of the case. On the other hand, those who are concerned with academic freedom may find what actually happened quite instructive, if rather discouraging. Although Case Western Reserve University has installed a high-speed optical fiber network for use by the students (and will be making it available to the faculty in the future) and has supplied telnet and ftp programs, there is very little use that can be made of that system, other than conducting non-Boolean searches in the library catalog and reading and posting messages to the news lists maintained on a public bulletin board called Freenet. On that bulletin board there is a local news list called CWRU.INS.GENERAL (INS stands for Information Network Services). One of our law students--a student whose major, as Dan Brown correctly says, law students not having majors, "is incidentally not computer related,"--this law student, who was not taking the course in computers and the law only because I did not offer it this year, repeatedly posted messages on this local news list asking INS for information about the way that the TCP/IP programs and the packet drivers worked, and how they were configured, etc. As those who are aware of the ways of systems administrators might suspect, no information was forthcoming. The student then wrote a simple "chat" program in 8086 assembly language that demonstrating how one can cause the packet drivers supplied by INS to send and receive messages, and he posted the source code--but not the executable program--on CWRU.INS. Shortly thereafter the following message appeared on CWRU.INS over the name of one of the system managers: We have removed a posting by "cjs" of a program that allows one to send raw Ethernet packets. We suggest that users NOT attempt to use this or any similar program to send raw packets on the network. We remind users that any disruption of the network through the use of such programs, intentional or not, is considered a violation of the University's ethics policy. Anyone found violating that policy will be brought up on charges to the appropriate University office. Such activity will result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal from the institution. Though there is, of course, no ethics policy forbidding "any disruption of the network through the use of such programs, intentional or not," no one is arguing that INS lacks the authority to forbid the use--as opposed to the posting of the source code--of a program on the networks that they administer. On the other hand, it is debatable--and it was extensively debated--whether the program itself (as opposed to the source code) "could potentialy be used disruptably" as Dan Brown claims. (Some claimed that it could, but the responsible people at INS never really made such a claim.) The important fact is that the more serious claim that the program somehow "comprimised network security" is true only if one believes that network security is secured only by making _public information_ about the system unavailable to its users. The actual reason for the removal of the program is made clear in a message from the systems manager responsible for the censorship to the student who wrote the program. This explanation was later posted on CWRU.INS, so Dan Brown can hardly claim that he did not know the facts. Here's that explanation, which starts with a quotation from a request made by the student: >I'd like to post a copy of my chat program so people can see what >we are all talking about. > >Is this OK? > >cjs > >p.s. you're invited to follow it with a post explaining which >sections you feel are bad programming (I'll of course respond >explaining why you're >not correct :->); this will help students >begin to understand how to program the network and what INS >considers good programming practice. No. It is not ok. Here is the reason why it is not ok. The reason we do not want your program posted is that we feel it creates a potential threat to the operation and administration of the network. As you have stated, local area networks have many failings with respect to security. Their security partly depends on the obscurity of certain aspects of their design and implementation. Your program essentially provides everyone with the tools by which they can create significant problems for us to effectively manage the network. Showing people how to remove or change the source address on the Ethernet packet is the largest threat. While we would still be able to track down the source, the job would be significantly more difficult involving significantly more human and equipment resources than would otherwise be necessary. Another threat is the fact that naive users may modify this program in ways that would adversely affect operation of the network without being aware of it, again requiring human and equipment resources to track the problem down. While you provide the tools that allow them to interact with the network at its lowest layers, you do not provide them with the wisdom to do so correctly. You might argue that people can find this information anyway if they make an effort. I would say that part of what provides security is the fact that people must make such an effort to find out this information. Those who might intentionally cause problems or even those who would naively cause problems might not ever become aware of the means by which to cause problems because of the effort required to find these tools and to know what they can do. You remove that effort by directly providing them with the tools to manipulate the network at its lowest layers. You might argue that you could, and perhaps would, offer to change the program to include the source address on the Ethernet packet. I would counter that while making that change would improve the operation of your program with respect to our concerns, it would still give users the tools to cause operational problems and it still has other problems which I discuss below. (Several paragraphs follow that have been deleted. They seem quite reasonable--if slightly worry-warty--and do not, in my opinion, raise any questions relating to academic freedom.) The idea that a student's work would be removed from a public bulletin board maintained by the University, not because it was posted on the wrong board, but because that work contained publicly available information, strikes me as an egregious violation of academic freedom. "Security by obscurity" may be a reasonable goal in the world of commerce where information is hoarded as a valuable trade secret; but the goal of the academic community is to make information available, not to obscure it. For those who do not care about students, I should add that this act of censorship by the network administrators also infringes the academic freedom of at least one faculty member. I shall be teaching a course in computer law next year; in that course I intend for us to study issues of computer security, which will mean that my students will be learning exactly the sort of information that our censors wish to obscure. I will obviously not be able to use a bulletin board on the network for class assignments and discussion, knowing as I do that the students' work--and perhaps mine--will be "removed" if it is deemed too informative. Peter D. Junger Professor of Law Case Western Reserve University Law School internet: JUNGER@CWRU.CWRU.EDU bitnet: JUNGER@CWRU ------ 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 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.)