Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) May, 1991 Vol. 1, No. 10 Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org) To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup. [SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of May This is a compilation of the best notes from May. It includes several notes detailing how academic freedom might be applied to computers. Issues considered include privacy, participation, quota enforcement, freedom to read, and personal use. Several notes tell how academic freedom is (or is not) being applied at particular universities including the University of Illinois and Boston University. From Berkeley comes a description of Berkeley's Open Computing Facility (OCF), an organization that *democratically* manages computer resources for thousands of users. Also, the compilation includes a case study that tells how a general student policy has evolved since 1904. After reading the case study you will be able to say "hey, this computer policy looks like something from the 1930's." Finally, there is a note that tells how to get back issues from the CAF archive. - Carl] In this issue: John McCarthy 30 Computers and Academic Fr<>m mailing list (batch edition) ahlevy@ux1.cso 9 >New NCSA e-mail policy in<>sistent with Academic Freedom Carl Kadie 26 Which rights? Carl Kadie 81 > Carl Kadie 96 - Carl M. Kadie 182 > Carl Kadie 309 New to the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) archive Carl M. Kadie 402 From Regulations to Rights: The Maturation of Policy cgd@ocf 393 >Need info on computer acct policy cgd@ocf 42 > kadie 102 >Harrassment via email jbuck 22 >Email privacy vs. System management 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. From: John McCarthy Message-Id: <9105011453.AA22372@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition) What university (and other organization) policies should be. 1. Personal non-commercial use should be tolerated to the extent that it doesn't increase costs substantially. The cost of having segregated facilities is too high. We allow people to write personal letters on university desks, and we don't monitor internal calls to see if they are business related. As computing gets cheaper, this tolerance should increase. 2. Whether universities have legal obligations or not, they should grant the right to privacy of email. Indeed Congress should eventually establish a legal right to privacy of email corresponding to the privacy laws for telephone conversations. It may take a while to formulate such a law precisely. 3. Universities shouldn't worry about whether they will be held responsible for what someone says on email or usenet postings. There have been no suits so far, and the use of company desks to right letters hasn't led to suits either. Whatever hypothetical risk there might be should be tolerated. 4. Computers offer the opportunity to extend freedom of the press far beyond what exists with print media, and this opportunity should be taken. In fact, it has been taken with usenet and with mailing lists. The reason is that the cost of providing universal access to electronic publication is one that society can readily afford. The limitation is and will remain the ability of readers to select what they will pay attention to with the aid of moderators (who should really be called editors by analogy with print media). Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 11:15:08 -0500 Message-Id: <9104301615.AA18715@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> From: ahlevy@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: New NCSA e-mail policy inconsistent with Academic Freedom It is important to note that NCSA has not suspended its policy by which its grants to its director the right to monitor email. It has only requested suggestions from a University committee concerned with computers and networking as to how it could establish procedures for revising its policy. This committee has not yet met to consider the issue. I do not consider that warning one that one's mail may be opened is sufficient to permit the carrier of that mail to open it. 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 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 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 Date: Sat, 18 May 91 00:33:56 -0500 From: "Carl M. Kadie" Message-Id: <9105180533.AA15472@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Subject: Re: Which Rights? Summary: Newsgroups are already covered by library policy Joe Brennan writes > The relationship of library policy to newsgroups can be carried only so > far. Getting all newsgroups is actually a possible goal, unlike getting > all books. Discarding old material is standard. Newsgroups seem to me > more like mail or speech than a library collection. I would say the the purpose of a library is to circulate material, not just to collect books. At least that is the stated purpose of the academic library that I know the most about. It is true that newsgroups (aka forums, notesfiles, echoes, etc) are not books; rather they are periodicals (or, more precisely, serials). As such, we don't need to make an analogy; they are already covered by library policy (such as the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement). In support of this assertions I offer three pieces of evidence (detailed information is appended). First, sci.psychology.digest was "selected as one of the best new magazines of 1990 in the Library Journal's annual survey." Second, for a subscription fee, ClariNet offers the same stories that you might read in a printed newspaper. In fact, ClariNet calls itself "the electronic newspaper for the USENET community". Third, according to a note in PACS-L (the Public-Access Computer Systems [for Libraries] forum), some of these "electronic journals" have ISSN numbers. - Carl enclosers: ------- >From: harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) ~Newsgroups: news.admin,news.misc ~Subject: Best Magazines of 1990 Selects Usenet Group Message-ID: <5956@idunno.Princeton.EDU> ~Date: 5 Feb 91 04:31:57 GMT Organization: Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey sci.psychology.digest Selected As One of 1990's Best Magazines The American Psychological Association's Press Office has just been notified that sci.psychology.digest (PSYCOLOQUY on Bitnet), an electronic journal sponsored by APA and implemented at Princeton, has been selected as one of the best new magazines of 1990 in the Library Journal's annual survey (by Bill Katz, to appear on April 15). This is a tribute to Usenet and the electronic medium too, and we will redouble our efforts to develop the net's vast potential in scholarly communication. Co-Editors: Stevan Harnad Perry London Visiting Fellow Dean Psychology Department Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology Princeton University Rutgers University Stevan Harnad Department of Psychology Princeton University harnad@clarity.princeton.edu / harnad@pucc.bitnet / srh@flash.bellcore.com harnad@learning.siemens.com / harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu / (609)-921-7771 -- Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!tellab5!mcdchg!usenet >From: brad@clarinet.com Newsgroups: comp.newprod Subject: ClariNet news to be available over PSI network Summary: Local access to ClariNet feeds in many U.S. cities Message-ID: <63214@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com> Date: 17 May 91 16:58:06 GMT Lines: 78 Approved: usenet@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com ClariNet, the electronic newspaper for the USENET community, announces that feeds of ClariNet's 150 newsgroups are now available from UUPSI, the USENET feeding hub of Performance Systems International, Inc. ClariNet offers an electronic newspaper in USENET format, consisting of UPI wireservice news, sports, finance and technology news, plus Newsbytes computer industry news, syndicated features and our computer stock report. Over a megabyte of news flows daily, updated around the clock. PSI offers dial-up UUCP and dial-up and dedicated TCP/IP networking. Though UUPSI, they offer flat rate mail and news connections with local dial-up in a number of cities for only $75/month. This feed can now include ClariNet news for those who pay subscription fees to ClariNet. Feeds are also available to PSI's TCP/IP customers. The result is much wider low-cost availability of ClariNet news -- if you considered it before but didn't want a long-distance feed, check with us again. ClariNet prices range from $9.95 a year for a syndicated column such as "Dave Barry" to $10/month for Newsbytes daily computer news to $35/month for all publications. Prices are vastly cheaper per person under site licences or educational licences. See ClariNet at USENIX in Nashville, June 11-13, Booth 509 ClariNet feeds are also available through UUNET, Anterior, Portal, EUNet, MSNEN, NSTAR, ClariNet and cooperating customer sites in various areas of North America, Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. For more information contact: ClariNet: info@clarinet.com 1-800-USE-NETS 1-519-884-7473 124 King St. N. Waterloo, ON N2J 2X8 PSI: info@psi.com 1-800-82PSI82 1-703-620-6651 11800 Sunrise Valley Dr. Suite 1100 Reston, VA 22091 The following are areas where PSI offers local dial-up UUCP/USENET service, or areas where such service will be available shortly. PSI also has several other locations where direct TCP/IP connections are available. In addition, several of those nodes have planned dial-up service in the works. These include: Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Minneapolis, Orlando, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, and the city of San Francisco. For a full list, mail any message to pop-info@psi.com. POP Location Availability ------------- -------------- Albany, NY Available Today Atlanta, GA Available Today Boston, MA Available Today Buffalo, NY Available Today Chicago, IL Available Today Corning, NY Available 8/91 Garden City, NY Available 7/91 Hartford, CT Available Today Houston, TX Available Today Islip, NY Available Today Ithaca, NY Available 5/91 Los Angeles, CA Available Today Mountain View, CA Available Today New York, NY (2) Available Today Newark, NJ Available Today Philadelphia, PA Available Today Portland, OR Available Today Reston, VA Available Today Rochester,NY Available Today Santa Clara, CA Available Today Seattle, WA Available 5/91 Stamford, CT Available 6/91 Syracuse, NY Available Today Trenton, NJ Available Today Utica, NY Available 5/91 Westborough, MA Available 5/91 WhitePlains, NY Available Today Path: eff!world!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!CORNELLA.BITNET!REBX > From: REBX@CORNELLA.BITNET Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l Subject: Cataloging electronic journals in paper Message-ID: Date: 16 May 91 21:05:44 GMT Lines: 14 Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AUVM.EDU X-Resent-Date: Thu, 16 May 91 11:21:38 EDT X-Resent-From: REBX@CORNELLA Approved-By: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I'd like to know if anyone is providing electronic journals or LISTSERV mailings after printing them off as paper copies. Also, is anyone keeping them as e-files and cataloging them as such, for access electronically on local systems? I'm thinking of works such as Postmodern Culture, our own PACS-L listings and Review, or EthnoFORUM, the ethnomusicology digest. Each of these have ISSNs and come out with various schedules. EthnoFORUM is approx. tri-weekly. Randal Baier Southeast Asian Cataloger Cornell University >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: Wed, 15 May 91 21:59:46 -0500 From: "Carl M. Kadie" Message-Id: <9105160259.AA03505@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Subject: From Regulations to Rights: The Maturation of Policy Most university policies on computing resources are heavy on prohibitions and light on permissions. (Look, for example, at the policies collected in CAF archive available via anonymous ftp from eff.org in directory academic/widener). I believe that there is a natural evolution from no policy, to an informal policy, to an overly proscriptive policy, to a policy that balances rights and responsibilities. I see this pattern everywhere, even in the evolution of the modern nation; however, I would like to describe a more mundane instance, the evolution of university student policy. Understanding this example should help us predict and guide the course of academic computer policy. For my case study, I've looked at the student policy of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, a public, land-grant and research university. In the material below, idented paragraphs are quotes [execpt for my comments in square brackets]. The 1904 "Regulations for the Guidance of Undergraduate Students" starts out on a high note: In connecting himself with the University, the student neither looses the rights nor escapes the responsibilities of the citizen. As far as due process, it says that a student can be suspended from any class by the instructor for "sufficient reason" for up to three days, and that such suspensions shall be reported immediately to the President. Here are some other regulations: 35. Smoking is not permitted in any of the public buildings of the University. ... 37. [S]ubjecting fellow-students to indignities of any character is a violation of university discipline. [This is a reference to hazing.] 38. The posting or distributing of advertisements of university occurrences, entertainments, etc, in saloons is forbidden. ... 40. The Council of Administration will summarily discipline any student found guilty of betting, of frequenting saloons, or of becoming intoxicated. ... Meetings In University Buildings ... 44. No society or association may be organized among the students of the University without permission of the Council of Administration, and no change in the character of the regulations of such society or association may be made without such permission. 45. The Council reserves the right to withdraw its authorization from any society of students, if, in its judgment, the well-being of the University requires such action. ... 49. No public entertainment or exhibition may be given by students except by permission of the Council of Administration. After permission is obtained the dates for such entertainments or exhibitions must be entered at the President's office, at least two weeks before their occurrence, and all programs for the same must be approved by the Dean of Undergraduates or, in the case of a women's meeting, by the Dean of Women. The 1908 Regulations are about the same except that they now cover the student newspaper, the Daily Illini. The paper is run "Board of Control" made up of two faculty members (appointed by the Council of Administration), three students (elected by the readership), and editor and business manager (also students). The regulations say: 78. 4. The Board of Control shall consider and decide questions relative to the size, price, contents, and general policy of the paper. By 1911, the Daily Illini had become a not-for-profit corporation (subject to the general authority of the Council of Administration). The trustees of the corporation were three faculty (appointed by the Council) and three elected students. The trustees selected (and could fire) staff and decided the relative space given to various classes of contents. By 1930, the rules had changed a bit: 62. Organizations with Secret Memberships -- A student who is a member of any student organization which maintains a secret membership or who is affiliated which such an organization is subject to University discipline. ... [Smoking was prohibited not just from University buildings, but also from the University grounds] ... 64. Use of Intoxicating Liquors; Betting -- (a) Any student who is guilty of betting, illegally using intoxicating liquors [this was during Alcohol Prohibition], or immoral conduct is subject to dismissal from the University. ... 66. Civil Offenses -- Any student fined or imprisoned by the civil authorities thereby becomes liable to University discipline. ... Living Quarters 70. Living Quarters of Students -- No unmarried undergraduate student may occupy living quarters in which there does no reside some person in general charge approved by the University. ... 74. The Woman's Building Reserved for Women Students -- The Woman's building may not be used for regular meetings of clubs and similar organizations, unless they are composed exclusively of women of the University. 75. Initiations on the Campus -- Student organizations, including literary societies, are permitted to use University buildings and grounds for the purpose of conducting initiations only on condition that all horseplay and the like shall be eliminated from the programs of such initiations. ... [The number of Daily Illini's board members (formally trustees) was up to eight, four appointed faculty and four students. A quorum was made up of four members and tie votes were decided by the Council of Administration.] ... APPENDIX II - LIBRARY REGULATIONS Use of Books -- The Library is primarily for free reference use. In 1932 the size of the regulations was cut from 77 pages to 14 pages. The introductory paragraph about being a citizen was cut. All of the disciplinary rules were condensed to one rule: 27. Basis for Discipline -- A student may be disciplined for any conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the University. Any student fined or imprisoned by the civil authorities becomes liable to University discipline. [The no-smoking-on-campus (even outdoors) rule also survived the cut; as did the rule requiring supervision of undergraduate living quarters.] At about the same time the Regulations was cut, a new booklet was created. This was the Code of Student Affairs. [The earliest copy of the Code that I could find in the library was from 1950]. By 1938, smoking was allowed outside, in smoking rooms, and at dances. By 1944, the "Basis of Discipline" had gotten a tiny bit more specific: 26. Basis for Discipline -- The University reserves the right to exclude at any time students whose conduct is deemed undesirable or prejudicial to the University community's best interest, example of which, without excluding others, are gambling, visiting or loitering in the vicinity of places of ill-repute, violations of law involving moral turpitude, intoxication, and disorderly conduct. Students may be subject to discipline for other sufficient cause. The 1950 Regulations are almost identical to the 1944 Regulations. The biggest difference is that smoking was allowed in offices and first-floor hallways. The 1950 Code on Student Affairs provides more information. It details the organization of the student senate and regulates student organizations. For example, it says: Article 4 - Unrecognized Organizations -- V. Section 13 -- Forbidden Organizations -- Organizations with purposes or practices contrary to morality, to education, or to public or University welfare, or with a secret membership will not be permitted to exist on the campus. 214z The chapter on University Facilities says that student organization may use University rooms for purposes approved by the Committee on Student Affairs. Also, that noncommercial notices (including room-for-rent, etc) may be posted to University bulletin boards if the notice is signed and dated. In 1956, the size of the "Basis of Discipline" section in the Regulations tripled as two paragraphs prohibiting intoxicants from undergraduate housing and from the activities of undergraduate organizations were added. In 1958, an administrative order of the President set down rules for visiting speakers. The rules are prefaced with this: The University of Illinois Statutes (Section 39a) state, "It is the policy of the University to maintain and encourage full freedom within the law, of inquiry, discourse, teaching, research, and publication ..." Consistent with this policy the Senate Committee on Visiting Speakers will maintain the tradition of full freedom of discourse for visiting speakers within the limitations imposed by law, rules of the Board of Trustees, University regulations, and the welfare of the University. [With classic doublethink, it then probibits full discource:] 1. Subversive Organizations. The Illinois Statutes provide [...]: No Trustee, official, instructor, or other employee of the University of Illinois shall extend to any subversive, seditious, and un-American organization, or to its representatives, the use of any facilities of the University for the purpose of carrying on, advertising, or publicizing the activities of such organization." [It also requires that student organizations get approval before having in a visiting speaker.] In 1959, the "Basis of Discipline" again increased as three paragraphs were added: Unauthorized mass demonstrations are not approved by the University. In the event of any unauthorized assembly, any student involved as an inciter, leader, *or as a follower* [the "*"'s mark italics in the original] is a participant and is subject to University discipline. Any student who alters or mutilates any official document of the University, i.e. identification card, program card, charge slip, receipt, transcript of credits, etc., is subject to dismissal. Any student withholding information or giving false information on his application for admission or readmission may become ineligible for admission to the University or subject to dismissal. Also in 1959, the purpose of the library changed. Before it was for free reference use, now: The Library exists primarily in order to circulate books to the faculty and student body of the University. The house regulations also changed in 1959, unmarried undergraduate students were required to live in housing approved by the University. The Code on Undergraduate Student Affairs of 1963 starts out: "The guiding principle underlying any student regulation of the University of Illinois is its contribution to the best interests of the majority of the students of the University." It says that recognition of a student organization can be "refused or withdrawn at any time because of policies or practices inimical [meaning hostile or harmful] to education or to the best interests of the University, excessive fees or dues, inactivity or noncompliance with University regulations." Organizations with secret memberships are still forbidden. In 1961, the Trustees added this to the rules on visiting speakers: 2. Political Speakers. University building and grounds shall not be used for political purposes except for candidates for nomination or election to state-wide or national offices may appear in person to make political address. In the 1964 Regulations, mass demonstrations where still prohibited. Some picketing and distribution of printed material was, however, allowed. Distribution of printed material was allowed, for example, if: 1) Individuals or groups responsible for distribution of printed materials must be identified 2) Distribution of such materials inside buildings is prohibited, except at properly authorized meetings and then only with the consent of the group sponsoring the meeting. [...] Between 1960 and 1964, the administration of discipline also changed, for the first time, students were guaranteed: b. Notification -- (1) The student is notified in writing in advance of the time and place of his hearing before the Subcommittee, of the precise nature of the charges against him, of his rights, and of the possible penalties that might be imposed. (2) The Student is informed in writing of the decision of the Subcommittee. c. Admissible Evidence -- (1) The student is invited to review in advance the evidence that will be introduced at his hearing. (2) -- the Subcommittee excludes from its consideration any evidence except that presented at the hearing. d. Appeals of Subcommittee Decisions -- (1) The Senate Committee on Discipline may hear cases appealed to it. [...] paragraph b.) (2) Any student seeking an appeal from the decision of a Subcommittee on Student Discipline is granted that privilege. By 1971, more student rights were recognized. Seniors could live were they pleased and no student's housing had to be supervised by someone approved by the University. In addition, all students were allowed to regulate their own hours, subject to house rules and procedures. The "Basis of Discipline" section was now almost five pages long. The University still forbid any "conduct deemed undesirable" including loitering in the vicinity of places of ill repute. Unauthorized demonstrations were no longer banned, but disruptive or coercive actions at such demonstrations were. (In fact, you could lose your federal financial aid if you took part in a disruptive demostration.) In September of 1971 everything changed. The Chancellor approved the Statement on Individual Rights. For the first time since 1931 students were explicitly recognized as citizens. The Statement begins: 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; [...] Any rules or regulations considered necessary to govern the interaction of the members of the University community are intended to reflect values which the community members must share in common if the purpose of the community to advance education and to enhance the educational development of students is to be fulfilled. These values include the freedom to learn, free and open expression within limits that do not interfere with the rights of others, free and disinterested inquiry, intellectual honesty, sustained and independent search for truth, the exercise of critical judgment, respect for the dignity of others, and personal and institutional openness to constructive change. The following enumeration of rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by these individuals in their capacity as members of the campus community or as citizens of the community at large. [Freedom of expression was guaranteed:] A. Discussion and expression of all views is permitted within the University subject only to requirements for the maintenance of order. [...] B. Members and organizations in the University community may invite and hear any persons of their own choosing, subject only to reasonable requirements on time, place, and manner for use of University facilities. 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. The right to peaceful protest was also recognized, as was privacy. Even within University-owned dorms and offices, a search warrant would be required before a search could be made. Student were allowed to form organizations for any purpose and the membership lists of such organizations could be kept confidential. Students were allowed to invite any person of their choosing to speak, "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." The rules for handout materials changed (kind of): A. Any individual may distribute leaflets, handbills, samples, and other type materials without prior approval [but not inside some buildings. Also you can't litter.] [...] C. Those distributing such materials should be aware that nothing in this policy in any way relieves them of personal responsibility for violation of civil laws. In 1972 the Code on Campus Affairs and the Regulations were combined into one booklet. The first part, Code, included the Statement on Individual Rights. The second part, Regulation, included provisions, some of which contradicted the code. For example, the code still required that groups distritbuting printed handout material be identified. Also, it still allowed the University to punish students for any "sufficient cause" including, but not limited to "loitering in the vicinity of places of ill repute." In 1973 the contradictions were fixed. Rules about handout material were removed from the Regulation part of the booklet. The any "sufficient cause" paragraph was replaced by a new section: It is in the best interest of the University of Illinois and all persons who are students or who may desire to become students at the Urbana-Champaign campus that the basis for discipline at this campus be clearly defined. The University discipline system recognizes that not all violations of local, state, and federal law effect the interests of the University community, and that discipline system accepts jurisdiction only in those instances in the University community's interest is substantially affected. The University discipline system may take action only upon the following bases: 1. Students Currently Enrolled a. Academic violations b. Violations of the the University vehicular or bicycle regulations c. Appeals and referrals from student judiciaries arising from violations of regulations. d. All actions that occur on University premises or property and that result in violation of local, state, or federal law or Board of Trustees' action or any University rule of conduct e. All actions that violate any of the laws or regulations cited in Section d above and that substantially affect the University community's interest, even though such actions do no occur on University property f. All cases referred to the discipline system following summary suspension by the Chancellor. Since 1973, there has been little need for change. In 1983 the purpose of the library changed again. Now it "exists primarily to circulate material [was "books"] to the faculty and student body of the University. More recently, smoking was banned indoors if smokers and nonsmokers might both be there. Over time the University's has given more and more protection to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and privacy. Also, the University has gone from vague prohibitions against any "conduct deemed undesirable" to explicitly listing prohibited conduct. (It says that clearly defined policies are in everyone's best interest). Today, on this campus, the Directory of NCSA can order a search of a users disk space if he thinks that it might contain clues about email that "attempt[ed] to disadvantage NCSA". I think this policy is literally 20 years behind the times. Inevitably computer policy will come into line with general University code. I hope that unstanding the history of University policy will make this happen sooner rather than later. Received: from USENET by eff with netnews for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org); contact usenet@eff if you have questions. Date: Sat, 25 May 1991 06:41:42 GMT Message-Id: <1991May25.064142.6947@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: kadie References: , Subject: Re: Harrassment via email jc@raven.bu.edu (James Cameron) writes: [...] >[...here's the ethics policy...] > > Boston University Information Technology ethics > > Conditions of Use and Policy on Computing Ethics March 26, 1990 [...] In the name of protecting privacy, the policy attacks privacy. It says the University has the power to "without notice, ... inspect ... any data [or] file" It imposes speech restricts that would be ridiculed if applied to the campus as a whole. It says the user may not "mak[e] accessible offensive [or] annoying material" It is incomplete, saying that that required behavior "is not limited to [] the following: [...]" It is circular. It prohibits users from misusing computer resources by "misusing system resources". It is ephemeral, saying that the University has the power "amend these Conditions and Policies at any time without prior notice." Imagine this policy generalized to the University as a whole: * The University has the power to, without notice, inspect any assigned office space or dorm room. * Members of the University community may not distribute or make accessible offensive or annoying material. * Members of the University community may be punished for infractions against rules that are not listed here. * Members of the University community must not "misuse University property", where "misusing University property" is defined as misusing University properity. * The University has the power "amend these Conditions and Policies at any time without prior notice." -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself. Date: Tue, 28 May 91 18:18:27 -0400 From: kadie (Carl Kadie) Message-Id: <9105282218.AA05613@eff.org> Subject: Re: Need info on computer acct policy [This is the Constitution of Berkeley's Open Computing Facility, an organization that democratically manages computer resources for thousands of users.] The OCF Constitution As ratified or amended by votes of the OCF membership: 3 February 1989 Preamble We, the computer using community of the Berkeley campus of the University of California, provide by this Constitution an organization dedicated to the pursuit of obtaining and managing open computing resources. The intent of this organization is to provide an environment where no member of Berkeley's campus community is denied the computer resources he or she seeks. This group's spirit can be traced directly to the former Undergraduate Computing Facility, however this organization's membership is much more widely open. It is also the intent of this group to appeal to all members of the Berkeley campus community with unsatisfied computing needs and to provide a place for those interested in computing to fully explore that interest. It is the intention of this group that no small number of people ever control the accessibility of any OCF sponsored computing facility. Articles 1. Name This organization shall be called the Open Computing Facility and may also be referred to as the OCF. 2. Members 2.1. General Membership Any UC Berkeley student, faculty or staff member may be an OCF Member. 2.2. Active Members 2.2.1. Eligibility Active Membership status is restricted to U.C. Berkeley Faculty and Staff and Registered Students. 2.2.2. During General Meetings Any member of the OCF shall be an Active Member by physical presence at an OCF General Meeting. May 28, 1991 2 2.2.3. Between General Meetings Any OCF Member who has attended an OCF General Meeting in either this semester or the one preceding shall be an active member. 2.3. Inactive Members Any OCF Member who is not an Active Member shall be considered an Inactive Member. 3. Officers 3.1. Elected Officers 3.1.1. Offices The only elected offices are General Manager and Site Manager(s). 3.1.2. Eligibility All elected officers must be Active Members. 3.1.3. When Elected The officers shall be elected at each OCF Elections Meeting. 3.1.4. Term Of Office The officers' terms shall begin immediately after election and last until the next election. 3.1.5. Removal From Office An officer shall be removed from office if, at a General Meeting, the members vote to remove him or her. 3.1.6. Succession If any elected position becomes vacant, a General Meeting will be called to elect a replacement. 3.1.7. General Manager Duties The General Manager is the chief political and executive officer of the OCF and shall chair all meetings. 3.1.8. Site Manager Duties The Site Manager is the chief system manager of a particular installation of computing equipment. In the absence of the General Manager, a Site Manager shall chair meetings. 3.2. Board of Directors 3.2.1. Membership 3.2.1.1. General Manager and Site Manager(s) The General Manager and Site Manager are ex officio members of the Board and shall have no more and no less power than any other member of the Board. May 28, 1991 3 3.2.1.2. Other Directors Other Directors shall be appointed and removed through the OCF Decision Making Process. 3.2.2. Term Of Office The term shall expire at the next Elections Meeting. 3.2.3. Duties Directors shall normally be responsible for the creation, implementation and discussion of the majority of OCF actions. Also the Board shall review all of the actions of the General Manager and Site Manager at its discretion. 3.3. Interim Manager When the OCF is not formally in session, or any other time when there is a temporary vacancy in an elected office, the OCF Decision Making Process shall designate a member or members to see to it that the OCF functions properly. 4. Meetings The OCF is formally in session during the Fall Semester and the Spring Semester. This is the only time General Meetings can take place. The OCF is informally in session between the semesters. During this time the Faculty Sponsors and the Interim Managers are responsible for the functioning of the OCF. 4.1. General Meetings The OCF Decision Making Process can call a General Meeting at any time. When possible, one weeks notice shall be given. 4.1.1. Election Meetings The Elections Meeting shall, in this order, approve the Faculty Sponsors, elect the General Manager, elect the Site Managers, appoint Directors and then consider new business. 4.1.1.1. Fall Meeting The OCF shall meet during the week immediately preceding Thanksgiving. 4.1.1.2. Spring Meeting The OCF shall meet during the second week following Spring Break. 4.1.2. Special General Meetings 4.1.2.1. How Called Ten OCF members can call a Special General Meeting when the normal process for calling a General Meeting is not feasible. May 28, 1991 4 4.1.2.2. Procedure These ten members must notify the General Manager if possible, provide prominent public notice of the meeting at least one week beforehand and must try to contact all members of the OCF. 4.2. Voting 4.2.1. Elections and General Meetings Quorum By definition a quorum exists at these meetings. 4.2.1.1. Special General Meetings Quorum consists of 25% of all Active Members prior to the meeting. 4.2.2. Board Meetings Quorum consists of 3/4 of the Board of Directors or five Board members, whichever is greater. 4.2.3. Procedure 4.2.3.1. Election of Officers The election of officers shall be by secret ballot. A simple majority of those casting votes (including abstaining votes) is required. If on the first ballot no candidate receives a simple majority, then there will be a runoff between the top two candidates. The voting will continue until one candidate receives a simple majority. 4.2.3.2. Other Votes All other votes require a simple majority to pass. 4.2.3.3. Proxy An OCF Member must be present at a meeting to vote. 5. Faculty Sponsors The OCF Faculty Sponsors shall consist of a faculty member or faculty members who are dedicated to the functioning of the OCF. These Faculty Sponsors shall be selected by the OCF Board of Directors and shall be subject to selection by the OCF at the Elections Meeting. 6. The OCF Decision Making Process 6.1. Faculty Sponsors The Faculty Sponsor or Faculty Sponsors shall have ultimate authority over any OCF actions except for constitutional amendments and the approval of the Faculty Sponsors. 6.2. OCF Membership The OCF Active Membership shall have authority over any OCF actions except where such action conflicts with Article 6.1. May 28, 1991 5 6.3. OCF Board of Directors The OCF Board of Directors shall have authority over any OCF actions except where such action conflicts with Articles 6.1 and 6.2. 6.4. OCF General Manager The OCF General Manager shall have authority over any OCF actions except where such action conflicts with Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3. 6.5. OCF Site Managers OCF Site Managers shall have authority over any OCF actions except where such action conflicts with Articles 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4. 7. Bill of Rights 7.1. Nondiscrimination The OCF shall not discriminate in any way against any person by race, color, religion, marital status, national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation, handicap, college major or political activity. 7.2. Hazing The OCF shall not haze, in accordance with California state law. 7.3. Grievance Any individual who has a grievance with the OCF shall first contact the General Manager. He or she may then appeal to the Faculty Sponsors and then finally to the University of California through established channels. 7.4. Conduct All users of OCF managed facilities shall comply with University of California regulations, including the UC Berkeley Student Conduct Code and any OCF regulations. 7.5. Freedom of Information All official OCF documents must be provided to interested parties without undue delay and the OCF may not charge above cost to do so. 7.6. Privacy Individuals' rights of privacy shall not be violated without reasonable cause. 7.7. Rights Not Enumerated The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by individuals. May 28, 1991 6 8. Amendments and Bylaws 8.1. Amendments 8.1.1. Process A proposed amendment to the Constitution must be presented for consideration at a General Meeting. If the Membership votes to further consider the amendment, it shall be open for voting for a review period, of not less than two weeks. Voting in this case may be through electronic or physical means. A 2/3 majority of all Active Members is required for approval. 8.1.2. Annotation Whenever this Constitution is amended, an annotation of the date of ratification shall be added to the beginning of this document and shall be further noted immediately following the new amendment. 8.1.3. ASUC Records All amendments, additions, or deletions must be filed with the ASUC Student Affairs Office within one week of adoption, and must be in consonance with University of California and ASUC regulations and policies. 8.2. Bylaws Bylaws may be created or modified as needed, through the OCF Decision Making Process. 9. Dissolution The assets of the OCF constitute a continuing trust for the benefit of all members of the Berkeley campus community interested in open computing facilities. In the event of the dissolution of the OCF for whatever reason, the assets, after payment or adequate provision for payment of all outstanding debts and obligations of the OCF shall be transferred to a non- profit fund, foundation or corporation which is organized and operated exclusively for the purposes for which the OCF was founded. All unspent ASUC funds shall remain the property of the ASUC. May 28, 1991 Subject: Re: Need info on computer acct policy Date: Tue, 28 May 91 14:07:13 PDT From: cgd@ocf.Berkeley.EDU [kadie@eff.org writes ] > > Most university computer policies seem to have been set down without > serious user participation. Are there exceptions? Has anyone respected > academic freedom (and possibly their own student code) and given users > a voice? > I point to the OCF here at UC Berkeley. With the exception of a faculty sponsor (who is actively non-involved 8), we are completely student run. We have a constitution, and under this constitution, the users of the cluster (about 1500) can elect various managers, and, if the elected managers do not perform as the users see fit, they can have the managers removed and/or overturn their decisions. There is a board of directors which is also elected that makes most policy decisions, and can be removed/overridden by the general membership as well. One interesting point about the entire organization: Though we publicize the various mettings heavily, and encourage attendance and user interest/activity, there usually ends up being less than 20 users at a given general meeting, and i think that there are currently 6 users on the BoD. Even though it's in their interest to be involved and help make policy, the vast majority of our users are simply interested in being able to get their mail, read their news, use irc, or whatever, and are completely uninterested in policy. It seems that the people who are most interested are those who *LEFT* the organization in all respects a long time ago, and enjoy criticizing the flaws of the current elected officers. cgd cgd@ocf.berkeley.edu OCF {Staff, BoD} Received: from USENET by eff with netnews for caft-mail@eff.org (comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org); contact usenet@eff if you have questions. Date: Fri, 31 May 1991 22:24:22 GMT Message-Id: <1991May31.222422.28508@agate.berkeley.edu> Organization: University of California, Berkeley From: stanford.edu!agate!forney.berkeley.edu!jbuck@decwrl.dec.com References: , fo Subject: Re: Email privacy vs. System management In article , SKAPUR@ccmail.SUnysb.EDU (Sanjay Kapur) writes: |> Suppose an account is shared for two purposes: Research and reading mail. The |> research usage requires a huge quota. But instead of doing research the user |> uses up the quota for mail. What can the system administrator do? How can |> the system administrator be fair to someone who can not justify a research |> need for disk space? The system administrator is not mother. If the user is irresponsible, the system administrator need not intervene. Eventually your hypothetical user will find out that he has to delete some of the mail to make room for his research work, and the problem will solve itself. Most institutions solve this problem with billing. What you do is figure out how much you're paying for CPUs, hardware, disk space, etc and people can have more disk space by having their departments or research projects pay more money. Disks are cheap these days; buy more disk. In the case of instructional computing (class accounts, etc) there will be enough money in the budget to give users the use of a certain amount of disk. -- Joe Buck jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck