Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) June 15, 1991 Vol. 1, No. 12 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. Back issues and a report on the number of CAF readers is available via anonymous ftp from eff.org. See file academic/README. [This compilation includes more discussion about GIF images of nude people. A correspondent tells how librarians deal with similar material. Also, sexual harassment issues are again addressed. Another note argues that the mistreatment of even a fraction of a system's users is important. And a sys admin describes the inconvenience of creating and enforcing a formal policy. Finally, two related propositions are debated: Resolved: Users should not be suspended or expelled from computer systems as punishment for computer-policy infractions. Resolved: The punishment that a computer administrator can impose on a student should be not exceed that which an instructor can impose. - Carl] In this issue: kadie 73 >publicly-readable "adult"<>tate University CIS Policies) mojo!russotto 23 >OSU--not just for breakfast anymore Jane Fraser 54 >publicly-readable "adult"<>tate University CIS Policies) kadie 33 kadie 33 >publicly-readable "adult"<>tate University CIS Policies) treeves 71 OSU ACS policies & lack of them kadie 28 Punishment kadie 33 Punisher Neil Rickert 54 >Punishment junger@cwru 32 > Sanjay Kapur 42 > 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 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: Mon, 10 Jun 1991 04:17:18 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jun10.041718.19730@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: kadie Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies) fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes: [...] >A Doctor made issues of Playboy and Penthouse available to adult >patients in his waiting room (with precautions to prevent minors from >seeing them). A nurse in his employ noticed an upswing in the number >of offensive comments and the like from patients. When the doctor >refused to stop making the magazines available she filed suit claiming >that the distribution of the magazines in the office created an >environment in which she was much more likely to be sexually harrassed >even though the doctor did not in any way harrass her. She won the >suit and the doctor was forced to stop making them available. [...] The case you sight (site?) is certainly a tough one. [Anyone have a reference?] I think the key to the case is that the nurse was able to make a reasonable case that she was actually being harassed (by the some of the patients) and that, with the removal of the magazines, this harassment would likely stop. The explicitness of the material was not (directly) relevent; if the magazines in question had been Readers' Digest and Highlights, the case would have been settled the same. Also, the freedom to read in a doctor's office is not considered important. In contrast, the freedom to read at a university or library is of the highest importance. (In a perfect world, the harassing customers and no one else would be accountable for their actions.) - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself. 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: 10 Jun 91 15:08:02 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jun10.150802.29622@eng.umd.edu> Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park From: mojo!russotto@mimsy.umd.edu References: , <9106071728.AA03206@tillicum.frame.com>, aarpa Subject: Re: OSU--not just for breakfast anymore In article J Greely writes: > >With all due respect to Mr. Hogarth, I'm forced to say that it appears >he attended a different university than the one I've been kicking >around at for the past seven years. I'm familiar with incidents that >fit his description, but they have mostly been the exception rather >than the rule. But of course-- most users behave like the sheep the sysadmins want them to be, they do their coursework, maybe send a little electronic mail across campus, and nothing else. You only get trouble when someone pushes the system -- accidentally or purposely, legitimately or not, creating some work for the system administrator. There are several hundred, maybe more than 1000 accounts of the type I have at the University of Maryland computer science center. I know personally of about 5 people who have had negative run-ins with the system administrators. That's 1/2 of 1% -- looks good on paper, right? Except when you realize that ALL the conflicts were handled badly. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus. 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: Tue, 11 Jun 1991 00:23:31 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jun11.002331.13159@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: kadie Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies) [Reposted from comp.admin.policy - Carl] ~From: jfraser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jane Fraser) In article <1991Jun8.200358.13482@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >Refering to OSU's subscription to Playboy ... > >jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) writes: >[...] >>I know; I checked too, before I posted. I didn't have a chance to ask >>how they regulate access, although I note that it's currently recieved >>in the rare books room, which requires you to give your ID when >>requesting materials. >[...] > >It's my impression that materials such as Playboy are kept in places >such as the Rare Book room to protect the magazine from the reader, >not the reader from the magazine. (Playboy is prone to be stolen; a >vulnerable not shared by GIF files). > >Perhaps a real-life librarian can set Mr. Greely and me straight (just >send e-mail to caf-talk@eff.org). >-- >Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself. > I happened to have lunch today with Bill Studer, Director of the Libraries here at Ohio State. Playboy is available only by temporarily trading your student/faculty/staff ID for it, but anyone may read it. The only age limit imposed would be that the person would have to be able to reach the counter to present his/her ID. :-) The librarians assembled (most of the OSU Library administration) were strong in their remarks that librarians everywhere believe in unregulated access to library materials. By the way, the OSU Library is believed to be the only place with a complete collection of Hustlers. Someone in sociology needed them for research and used research funding to assemble the back collection. The researcher gave it to the library on condition that they maintain a subscription to keep the collection up-to-date. Jane M. Fraser Co-Director CAST, Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications The Ohio State University 210 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue Columbus, OH 43210 614-292-4129 -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself. 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: Tue, 11 Jun 1991 01:20:24 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jun11.012024.13653@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: kadie References (David, Lassner), ~Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies) david@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.EDU (David Lassner) writes: >Using Playboy as the example makes it too easy. That's clearly a mainstream >magazine. Extend the analogy to harder-core material (including the kind of >stuff that brings on criminal proceedings in many states) and scanned bitmaps >of copyrighted information. >Then questions might become: how many University libraries subscribe to >Penthouse Letters? How many audio-visual collections make animal porn widely >available? How many computer labs on campus distribute pirated software? [...] According to earlier note, the Ohio State Univeristy library subscribes to Hustler. The Chicago Theological Seminary library collection includes the "The Joy of Lesbian Sex". Your other point is well taken. A univerisity can certainly prohibit illegal activity on its campus. I would hope, however, the university would act even handedly. Remember a scanned picture of Calvin and Hobbs is just as bad (with repect to copyright) as a scanned picture from Playboy. Also, I note that next to many university photocopiers is an explaination of copywrite law. There is not, however, a guard. Also, I have never heard of a university searching assigned office space or dorm rooms for material photocopied in violation of someone's copyright. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself. 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: Tue, 11 Jun 1991 01:23:52 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jun11.012352.13809@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: kadie References: , <5B1F32269020908C@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Subject: Re: publicly-readable "adult" gifs (was Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies) I write: >(In a perfect world, the harassing customers and no one else would be >accountable for their actions.) SKAPUR@ccmail.SUnysb.EDU (Sanjay Kapur) writes: > In a perfect world, there would be no harassment of the receptionist at all. I condemn sexual (and every kind of) harassment and don't defend the display of offensive material in the classroom, lab, or office. In my opinion, the solution is to prohibit the offensive display (i.e. prohibit the harassment), not to ban the offensive material (electronic book burning.) SKAPUR@ccmail.SUnysb.EDU (Sanjay Kapur) writes: >Personally, I believe that ALL Anti-Pornography laws are >unconstitutional. (I AM NOT A LAWYER, PERSONAL OPINION ONLY) >Officially, I am sworn to uphold the constitution and all the laws of >New York state and of the United States and so my oath requires me to >uphold even Anti-Pornography laws. We need to be clear with our terms here. I know of no laws against "pornography", only laws against "obscenity". Most pornography (the nonobscene stuff) is protected by the first amendment. Especially, in New York :-) -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself. 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: Wed, 12 Jun 1991 15:26:31 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jun12.152631.6126@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Organization: The Ohio State University From: cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!treeves@uunet.uu.net Subject: OSU ACS policies & lack of them Sbrack says academic computing services at OSU has no policy - interesting comment since I have read that policy and I have been told (by one who knows) that mr brack signed a copy (possibly after the hpuxa incidents which I have no firsthand knowledge of) I do know that we have a number of file servers on microcomputer networks which normaly do not have student accounts. In 4 labs for classes we have generic numbered accounts which are issued for a quarter at a time. For this we have no written policy just an understanding with the faculty (who are to tell students) that this is class use only. In this case we HAVE operated on trust and common sense. After a couple of years of this we have had only a few very minor incidents, with one exception. In 3 of 4 labs we have had NO TROUBLE WHATSOEVER. Not a SINGLE file stored on a server that was not a product of the class. The minor incidents in the one lab were a couple games stored on server, which I dumped. The one exception was mr brack who IMO severely abused his access and suggested the solution was force (enforced quotas) rather than good old trust and common sense. Appleshare servers do not in fact offer that option, but I would use it if I could. Thanks to mr brack what we may be forced to do is give every student in all those classes a written policy statement and possibly make them sign them and turn them in before we allow access. You see, mr brack forced us to take action, but he can correctly state that he recieved no written policy and we had no formal procedure (i am talking about the micro servers ONLY). None has been needed. This puts us in an awkward posiiton and while he may not believe it we are VERY concerned about academic freedom, privacy of computer files and generaly avoiding stupid rules and restrictions. This would be a significant chunk of extra work which I do not have time for. Therefore my service to students (and that's what my job boils down to) in other areas would be reduced. Who benefits? An informal system of trust will be replaced with rigid, very strict rules and a stupid waste of paper. We will try to get away with just posting a sign in the lab saying only class work may be stored on server. Progams will be deleted without notice. Documents will NOT be read to determine class relatedness, but if we think the amount is excessive we will ask via instructor (I don't have students names) for them to clean up. After a short period we will remove oldest files if they don't clean up. Is the sign idea adequate ? what do you all think -- _____________________________________________________________________________ | That's my story, and I'm sticking to it! | |_____________________________________________________________________________| | Microcomputer software support, | treeves@magnus.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU | 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, 14 Jun 1991 18:55:03 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jun14.185503.29844@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: kadie Subject: Punishment Resolved: Users should not be suspended or expelled from computer systems as punishment for computer-policy infractions. [My mind is still open on this question, but for the sake of debate, I'll try to make the case.] The most common punishment for a computer-policy infraction seems to suspension or expulsion from the computer. I think think is often inappropriate and harsh. It is inappropriatate because the computer system, like the library, is not a treat for rewarding good students; rather it is an indispensable educational resource. When punishment is motivated by a desire to set an example for others or as response to an hysterical fear of so-called hackers, it is often overly harsh. Disciplinary action should respond to the indent of the student and the damage caused by the student, not outside pressures In developing responsible student conduct, disciplinary proceedings play a role substantially secondary to example, counseling, guidance, and admonition. For example, a written warning with a copy to the student's file may suffice. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself. 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, 14 Jun 1991 19:27:22 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jun14.192722.339@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: kadie Subject: Punisher Resolved: The punishment that a computer administrator can impose on a student should be not exceed that which an instructor can impose. In 1904, the student regulations at the University of Illinois allowed an instructor to punish a rule infraction by suspending a student from class for up to three days. Such suspensions had to be reported to the President immediately. Today, an instructor can lower a grade or give the student a written warning with a copy going to the student's file. An instructor cannot suspend or expel a student (but can, of course, recommend such action). This policy is wise; it is a check against overly harsh punishment. (A suspension from the classroom, computer, or campus is serious because it may prevent a student from completing a required homework or test.) Today (not at U of Illinois that I've heard of, but at other places), computer administrators expel students from the computers. The expulsion are often indefinite. There is often no report made to anyone outside the computer organization. The student is given no explanation of his or her rights (apparently because computer administrator believes that the student has no rights.) Computer administrators should work under the same constraints as instructors. They should not be allowed to punish a student with suspension or expulsion for the computer system. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself. Message-Id: <199106142048.AA30684@mp.cs.niu.edu> Subject: Re: Punishment Newsgroups: info.academic-freedom Organization: Northern Illinois University Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 15:47:59 -0500 From: Neil Rickert In article <1991Jun14.185503.29844@eff.org> Carl Kadie writes: >Resolved: Users should not be suspended or expelled from computer >systems as punishment for computer-policy infractions. Resolved: Drivers shall not have their licenses suspended or cancelled as punishment for driving infractions (including, but not limited to, DUI). >The most common punishment for a computer-policy infraction seems to >suspension or expulsion from the computer. I think think is often >inappropriate and harsh. The most common punishment for drunk driving seems to be suspension or cancellation of driving privileges. I think it is innappropriate and harsh. >It is inappropriatate because the computer system, like the library, is >not a treat for rewarding good students; rather it is an indispensable >educational resource. It is inappropriate because the highways are not a treat for rewarding good drivers, but are an essential transportation requirement of our modern society. >When punishment is motivated by a desire to set an example for others >or as response to an hysterical fear of so-called hackers, it is often ---------------------------------- I know you are going to disagree with the comparison, although I think it is really not that far off. The whole trouble with your view is your emphasis on PUNISHMENT. If you strictly mean that, I agree. Removal of computer resources, or of driving privileges, as punishment is usually not appropriate. But when a drunk driver loses his license the usual purpose is not punishment, but the protection of other drivers, and sometime just to get a message to the driver as to the seriousness of his actions. Likewise when a student computer privileges are suspended it is usually to prevent his further harm to other users, or to bring matters to his attention. On this system I have students whose phone number is not available to me because the student has decided to keep this private. I have students who never read their mail. When I suspend their account in such a way that the next time they log on they see a message explaining why the account was suspended, and what action they must take to resolve the present problem and to avoid recurrences, I get their attention in a manner not otherwise possible. -- =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940 From: junger@cwru.cwru.edu Message-Id: <9106142225.AA03883@eff.org> Date: 14 Jun 91 18:21:00 EST Subject: Re: Punishment Cc: junger@cwru.cwru.edu Once again the question of due process confronts us. It is one thing to suspend a student's account when he is apparently doing something that puts the system at risk, until the matter can be straightened out. It is something quite different to expel a student from the system as a punishment. Suspensions of the first sort must, of course, be done by those responsible for the system, but they should never be punitive and they should only be for the amount of time necessary to straighten the matter out. I do not see how it can ever be an appropriate punishment for a student to be permanently expelled from a computer system (or a library) if access to the system (or library) is necessary for the student's course work. I am sure that it is never appropriate for computer system administrators to be the one who punish students, or anyone else. Punishment is a matter within the jurisdiction of deans of students, student honor courts, and similar institutions, not systems administrators. It may, of course, be appropriate for systems adminsitrators to file complaints against a student who is accused of violating the rules relating to computers, but the ststems administrators should only serve as complaining witnesses not as judges, and the student who is accused is entitled to due process in such a case. The real difficulty is getting the faculty and administrators who are not sophisticated in the ways of computers to understand that there is no significant distinction, as far a punishment of students is concerned, between access to academic libraries and access to academic computers. Peter D. Junger Law School Case Western Reserve University ------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1991 15:36 EDT From: Sanjay Kapur Subject: Re: Punishment Message-Id: X-Organization: State University of New York, Stony Brook X-Vms-Cc: SKAPUR >Mr. Kapur demonstrates an almost poetic ability to come up with weird >anologies. He has persuaded me that the concern I expressed in my >original posting was too limited. Another real problem is the inability >of computer systems administrators to understand complicated concepts like >fairness or due process. > >Peter D. Junger >CWRU Law School >------ The reason is very simple. Systems Administrators are not appointed for their ability to understand those concepts. The reasons are historical. Most of the bosses of systems administrators came from the old MIS background of financial data processing, payroll and similar applications. Due process is just not relevant in those computer applications. I know of several instances across the country where systems administrators got into trouble with their boss for allowing "free expression" on the computer bulletin boards. The supposed lack of ability to understand democratic concepts that you very gratiously attribute to systems administrators is unfair and is stereotyping a whole group of people. It is very easy for a (highly paid) lawyer to ask the Systems Administrator to do something for which a systems administrator is most likely to get fired. Not suspending a trouble maker's account who then proceeds to lock out the University President from the computer is most probably going to put me out of a job. Are you or the ACLU going to come to my defense then? For fairness and due process to work in the real world: BEFORE A USER CAN GET DUE PROCESS, SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATORS HAVE TO BE PROTECTED. I will NOT stick my neck out for someone to chop it. Give me good armor to protect my neck, and I will stick out my neck to defend due process. Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046