Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) July 1-14, 1991 Vol. 1, No. 16 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 are available via anonymous ftp to eff.org. The directory is academic/news. Best-of-the-month issues are available as files April, May, and June. Disclaimer: CAF-news is compiled and published by me, Carl M. Kadie. It is not an EFF publication. The views I express and editorial decisions I make are my own. [First an apology. In the previous issue (cafn01v15), Wes Morgan described the pressures sys admins face caused in part by users. In my opening remarks, I said that the article was about "sysadmin abuse" [by users]. That was hyperbole. I can say categorically, that I have no reason to believe that Mr. Morgan has ever been abused (in any literal sense) by his users. (In fact, I think he is well liked and respected by the users of his machines.) I apologize for any grief my poorly chosen phrase caused. The first article of this collection, describes how Supreme Court's recent endorsement of the gag rule (with respect to abortion clinics) might effect universities. The next note shows the estimated readership and propagation of the CAF-talk newsgroup. The bulk of this issue discusses the case of Steven Brack at Ohio State University. Steven is formally charged with (among other things) "obscenity" (i.e. he wrote "fuck you" to an open newsgroup). In a small digression from this particular case, Helen C. O'Boyle, a grad student at Virginia Commonwealth University, talks about the general problem of punishment before (or without) a hearing. The issue ends with a request by me, on behalf of Steven, for e-mail letters of support. In this issue: llama 52 Brian Reid 49 USENET Readership report for Jun 91 kadie 42 Ohio State kadie 166 > kadie 39 > helen 129 > karl.kleinpaste 64 > kadie 50 > helen 78 kadie 29 You can help (was Ohio State) The addresses for the list are: 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 Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news. 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: 8 Jul 91 15:20:54 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jul8.152054.22306@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!llama@uunet.uu.net References <1991Jul5.070355.17751@ms.uky.edu>, <1991Jul7.060754.3327@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, <1991Jul7.160153.20042@ms.uky.edu>J ~Subject: Re: Bored on the Fourth of July kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes: >The clinic funding rule has not outlawed discussion of abortion, it simply >prevents the government from helping clinics that do (help that the gov't >is not required to give anyway). No constitutional right is absolute; any >law could be applied to some situation where it could intrude on freedom of >speech; this doesn't make every law unconstitutional. The recent SC >decision on nude dancing contains mention of this. (Trivial example: >a judge can order a jury sequestered and prevent them from discussing the >case they're trying. This is constitutional because the defendant's >right to a fair trial and the public's right of justice override the >jury's right to freedom of movement and speech, and because jury service >is a constitutional duty). [Kenneth Herron] In cases such as the ones you mention, the constitutional interests are weighed by the court. The question is which is more important, an organizations right to free speech when their activities are partially funded by the government, or the governments right to refuse to fund organizations based soley on their speech (rather than their "actions"). This is a tricky question any way you look at it, because it is hard to seperate speech from actions. I can see how reasonable people could disagree on this issue. Nonetheless, I believe that free speech should win out here. The government can find other (constitutional) ways to refuse to fund Planned Parenthood if it wishes, whereas the possible abuses of "gag money" at this point in our history where so much of our economy is federally controlled are frightening to consider. How many Universities, traditionally tolerant of unpopular speech (at least comparitively), accept government funding in one way or other? >Look at it another way: A clinic does not give up any rights by refusing >to accept government money; it doesn't have a right to government money, >and it doesn't have a right to exist if it can't pay its way. The clinic >must *ask for* and *accept* the money with full knowledge that it can't do >abortion counseling. Thus, it must *voluntarily* give up its right to >do abortion counseling. All of this is legal; a person (or in this case >a legal entity) may give up his constitutional rights and then be bound >by that decision. [Kenneth Herron] The other perspective is: Our government has decided to make some funding available to family planning clinics. However, clinics with otherwise identical services are differentiated in their ability to receive funding by the content of their doctor/patient or counselor/patient relationship, traditionally a strongly protected area of speech. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstanding From: reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid) Newsgroups: news.lists Subject: USENET Readership report for Jun 91 This is [not] the full set of data from the USENET readership report for Jun 91. Explanations of the figures are in a companion posting [in news.lists]. +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide. | +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population | | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all | | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month) | | | | +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month) | | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage | | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/reader | | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders | | | | | | | | who read this group. V V V V V V V V 331 24000 390 79% 448 968.9 5% 0.04 1.5% comp.org.eff.talk 615 12000 195 77% 2 26.2 100% 0.00 0.7% comp.org.eff.news 691 9400 153 46% 169 376.3 1% 0.03 0.6% alt.comp.acad-freedom .talk -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself. >From kadie Thu Jul 11 23:10:17 1991 To: cafb-mail ~Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition) Status: R Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list (batch edition) Thu Jul 11 23:09:36 EDT 1991 In this issue: kadie : Ohio State kadie : Re: Ohio State meckler@tigger.jvn : Re: Ohio State Amanda Walker Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: kadie Subject: Ohio State Last quarter Steven Brack, a student at Ohio State, was indefinitely expelled from Ohio State's Academic Computing Services (ACS) computers. Next month he is scheduled for his first hearing before the Judiciary Committee. The original charges were very vague (for example, he was accused of violating "miscellaneous rules"). At Mr. Brack's request, he was recently given a list of specific charges. Mr. Brack is accused of (this list is based on my notes from a telephone conversation; any mistakes are mine): 1) typing the command "shutdown" on a Unix computer 2) posting obscenities (i.e. the phrase "fuck you") to national builtin boards (i.e. the alt.flame and rec.aquaria newsgroups) 3) being expelled by ACS from all University networks 4) continuing his behavior on a student account on the engineering computer 5) The free print job of another student's account was charged to Mr. Brack's social security 6) Another student's account at Ohio State was used to access Mr. Brack's public account at the University of Denver. 7a) keeping nonacademic files on the Mac server b) used multiple (i.e. two) Macs at the same time 8) Stored 24 copies of a program, maliciously 9) [same as #6?] Used an ACS computer, on which he did not have an account, to access his account at the University of Denver. - Carl p.s. A collection of caf-talk notes relating to Steven Brack and Ohio State are available via anonymous ftp from eff.org as file academic/ohio-state. -- 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: Thu, 11 Jul 1991 15:37:12 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: kadie References: , <1991Jul11.145817.9405@eff.org> Subject: Re: Ohio State One of most important lessons I have learned from our discussions on the Computers and Academic Freedom mailing list is that good communications between users and sys admins is critical. As Sanjay Kapur, a sys admin at SUNY Stony Brook, wrote on June 20th: "My experience has taught me that ALL problems of abuse etc. come about due to lack of communications between the Systems staff and the users. Direct access to the systems staff who actually manage the system in addition to access to a front office (e.g. an accounts offoce, a user support office, Student assistants) has to be a central element of any policy." The Ohio State affair could be a case study in what happens when communications breaks down and all actions are ascribed to malice. Remember how this all started. Mr. Brack reformatted the system manual pages on an HP workstation. Academic Computer Services's (ACS) viewpoint: Mr. Brack vandalized the system. Brack's viewpoint: It was an accident; I assumed it would only reformat only my personal manual pages. If reformatting is such a terrible thing to do, why are the file permissions set so that anyone can do it? In the next event, Mr. Brack got into a heated argument in alt.flame. He replied to someone else's note with the message "fuck you". (This is exactly the kind of message for which alt.flame was designed.) The note that Mr. Brack replied was set so that by default all replies would go to not only alt.flame but also rec.aquaria. Thus, Mr. Brack posted the message "fuck you" to the aquarium newsgroup. ACS's viewpoint: Mr. Brack is trying to make Ohio State look bad by posting rude messages to the world. Brack's viewpoint: I was tricked into posting to rec.aquaria. I didn't even know that replies could be directed to other groups. So how can ACS and Mr. Brack view the same events so differently? William Murray's note of June 29 addresses this question: "The student knows that systems are robust. 'Pac-Man' never broke. 'King's Quest' never broke. You could push as hard as you wanted to; it never broke. You could not get out of the 'land.' It did not break. Yet. Push! Problems are related to hardware and software, not users. The rules of the game are implicit in the game. If you can do it, it is legitimate. The way you 'win the game' is to explore the land to its outermost boundaries." "The system administrator knows that systems are fragile. Most have come about by elaboration of earlier systems. They were not designed of a piece. Even when we do a major upgrade, we often include function from earlier systems, usually as an accomodation to users. This functionality often includes gratuitous generality and flexibility. The systems have often been extended to support user populations which are much larger and less orderly than the ones for which the systems were conceived. The result is systems which are not as robust as might be indicated or expected for their current use and user populations. The system administrator knows this." Here are my comments on the specifics of the Ohio State affair. [I'm quoting from my previous note.] Recall that the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says that "[t]he burden of proof should rest upon the officials bringing the charge." >Last quarter Steven Brack, a student at Ohio State, was indefinitely >expelled from Ohio State's Academic Computing Services (ACS) >computers. Next month he is scheduled for his first hearing before >the Judiciary Committee. Either 1) Mr. Brack was punished without the chance for a hearing or 2) that he is in jeopardy of being punished twice for the same offense (double jeopardy). >1) typing the command "shutdown" on a Unix computer He is not accused of executing this command; as an ordinary user it would be impossible for him to execute this command. >2) posting obscenities (i.e. the phrase "fuck you") to national >builtin boards (i.e. the alt.flame and rec.aquaria newsgroups) The phrase "fuck you" is rude, but protected speech. It is not obscene. The posting to rec.aquaria was accidental. The posting to alt.flame was consistent with the purpose of that newsgroup. >3) being expelled by ACS from all University networks This is not an offense on Mr. Brack's part. If ACS expelled Mr. Brack without due process, they have committed an offense. >4) continuing his behavior on a student account on the engineering computer Without more specific information this is not a legitimate charge. >5) The free print job of another student's account was charged to Mr. >Brack's social security [number] The other student charged the free print job to Mr. Brack's social security number with Mr. Brack's permission. They did this because the file that contained the other student's SSN was corrupted. >6) Another student's account at Ohio State was used to access Mr. >Brack's public account at the University of Denver. The other student accessed Mr. Brack's account at the University of Denver. This violates no Ohio State rules (or rules of the University of Denver system). >7a) keeping nonacademic files on the Mac server This violated no Ohio State rules. (Rather than ask Mr. Brack to remove his files; all his files were deleted.) >b) used multiple (i.e. two) Macs at the same time This is a petty accusation. Using multiple Macs when the lab is nearly empty violated no Ohio State rules. When asked to move to one Mac (because a class was expected), Mr Brack did. >8) Stored 24 copies of a program, maliciously This is false. Mr. Brack used 24 meg of disk space, but did not store 24 copies of any programs. This violated no Ohio State rules. When asked to free up disk space, Mr. Brack did. >9) [same as #6?] Used an ACS computer, on which he did not have an >account, to access his account at the University of Denver. Same as #6. In sum, you may not like Mr. Brack. You may have found his "fuck you" note offense and his subsequent defense of himself whinny. But whether you like him or not, the pettiness and weakness of the charges against Mr. Brack (he is not accused of causing any actual damage), support the conclusion that this whole affair has more to do with poor communications than with computer vandalism. I would hope that the charges against Mr. Brack would be dropped and that his computer expulsion would be ended. In the future, I hope that ACS will handle problems less hystically and more professionally by: 1) working with the user community to create and implement a good written policy 2) talking *with* (not "at") users when there is a problem 3) respecting their user's freedom of expression 4) respecting their user's due process rights by punishing (when neccessary) users only after the user has had a chance for a hearing. What do you think? - Carl References The full text of all the notes I quoted from are available via anonymous ftp to eff.org in files academic/news/June, academic/ohio-state, and academic/student-rights. -- 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: Thu, 11 Jul 1991 18:21:20 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jul11.182120.12042@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: kadie References: , <1991Jul11.145817.9405@eff.org>, <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org> Subject: Re: Ohio State A coorespent has sent me email, defending the authority of sys admins to suspend user accounts pending a hearing if the user accounts poses a treat to the system. I agree that a sys admin should have this authority. In fact the Joint Statement says much the same thing. It says: "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 well being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students, faculty, or university property." I don't, however, think this principle applies in the Ohio State case. Steven's expulsion from the computer is not temporary while he awaits a hearing. It is forever. He has no way to appeal the punishment because it was inflicted as an administrative action, not as part of University disipline. Steven's only recourse is to charge the ACS administrators with official misconduct. Next month's hearing will decide if Steven should be punished even *more* with an official warning from the University, or a suspension or expulsion from the University. It will not address his computer expulsion. I think this whole mess could have been avoided if either party had acted more maturely. Maybe that was impossible. Steven was a freshman and ACS was new (or at least a rapidly growing) organization. Now Steven and ACS seem to be in a death grip that could end with Steven's expulsion from OSU and employment termination for several ACS administrators. - 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: 13 Jul 91 01:39:01 GMT Message-Id: <16945@life.ai.mit.edu> Organization: The Internet From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu!helen@uunet.uu.net References: , <1991Jul11.145817.9405@eff.org>, <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org>.edu Subject: Re: Ohio State % cat my_background Former undergrad and frequent user of an academic campus network. (4+ years) Former academic computer center consultant/programmer. (2+ years) Former corporate UNIX network sysadmin. (4 years) Current grad student and frequent user of an academic campus network. (ie, someone who *has been* a sysadmin, but is currently a user) % Sanjay Kapur and William Murray summarized the sysadmin vs. users conflict in long-ago messages: SK> My experience has taught me that ALL problems of abuse etc. come SK> about due to lack of communications between the Systems staff and the SK> users. [...] WM> The student knows that systems are robust. [...] WM> The system administrator knows that systems are fragile. [...] Hmmm.... OK, good.... We seem to have defined a general class of problem which arises due to misunderstandings between users and administrators, due to environmental, educational and perhaps other differences between the two sets of people. Acknowledging the difference in perspective is a good first step. Now, where to from here? Let's pick a specific situation. Let's choose Brack (Russotto would be another, perhaps). As Kadie states in a message from July 11: CK> The Ohio State affair could be a case study in what happens when CK> communications breaks down and all actions are ascribed to malice. Continuing in <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org> Kadie analyzes the situation from that perspective and makes some interesting points. He goes on to discuss nine charges/complaints regarding Mr. Brack's alleged actions, presenting explanations/clarifications of those statements. I didn't see the original message which apparently listed the complaints against Mr. Brack, but one of them was: ??> 3) being expelled by ACS from all University networks Kadie's comment on this was: CK> This is not an offense on Mr. Brack's part. If ACS expelled Mr. Brack CK> without due process, they have committed an offense. I could not agree more! Here at Virginia Commonwealth University, the "Computer Ethics Policy" is considered a separate document from the "University Rules and Procedures Policy" which regulates general VCU community member conduct. Both of those are in turn considered separate from the "Academic Integrity Policy" which regulates student conduct with respect to academic coursework. Guess which of the three DOES NOT specifically mention "due process" as being required in the application of the policy? Guess what that means for students and staff accused of violating it? Additionally it is common opinion here on the part of Faculty and high level Administration that sysadmins are effectively exempt from compliance with the Computer Ethics Policy because most of it is defined by what the sysadmins themselves consider "appropriate" use of VCU "computing resources" on a case by case basis (thus, when accounts are turned off wrongfully, etc., sysadmins cannot even be held liable for a denial of service). I am just curious if the bureaucratic maze of policies at Ohio State (an even larger university than VCU) has similar loopholes. Anyone care to comment? Noting that "this whole affair has more to do with poor communications than with computer vandalism," Carl Kadie recommends: CK> I would hope that the charges against Mr. Brack would be dropped and CK> that his computer expulsion would be ended. In the future, I hope that CK> ACS will handle problems less hystically [sic] and more professionally by: CK> CK> 1) working with the user community to create and implement a good CK> written policy CK> CK> 2) talking *with* (not "at") users when there is a problem CK> CK> 3) respecting their user's freedom of expression CK> CK> 4) respecting their user's due process rights by punishing (when CK> neccessary) [sic] users only after the user has had a chance for a hearing. Except for #1 (which I think is an admirable but unachievable goal), it sounds great from the user's perspective. It also sounds non-expedient from a system administrator's perspective. Not all system administrators are used to taking the time to do this. It will be seen as increasing their workload. "We" were busy enough doing support. We wouldn't want to spend time listening to users explain why they did things whose end result created more work for us; we'd just want to stop those things from happening again. (note: addressing ONLY the time-constraint factor, not the power-trip factor which seems sometimes to come into play.) Another area of concern is the relationship between the system admins and the user community. System administrators don't want to be seen as tolerating too much, lest users get the idea that they can do ANYTHING without fear of reprisal. At the same time, users don't want to be blasted for doing something they didn't know was against rules. It seems to me that from the pragmatic time-constraint perspective, the key to making this sound like a good idea to the sysadmins who now prefer harsher action is to PROVE it results in a time savings FOR THEM. I believe it would, but don't know how to prove it. Ideas, anyone? Regarding keeping things from becoming a free-for-all, I think the key is simple communication -- and I don't mean a list of specific "Thou Shalt Not's" posted in the computer room. Computer use policies will be vague, and appropriateness of specific actions WILL be up to interpretation. As computer people, we know the value of applying "heuristics". Presumably the "algorithm" of determining what is and is not acceptable use of a computer includes not just the initial "black and white" knowledge (The Policy, known specific rules like "students are not permitted to give out their passwords to other students"), but also a bit of information gained by observation and experience which can be used as a guide in the interpretation of basic policy guidelines. From both the system admin's perspective and the user's perspective, this would seem to include information about the environment, the expectations of the people in it, and the characteristics of people in it, etc. The better the heuristics, the better each person's interpretation of the policy is likely to be, and the less chance of misunderstandings occurring. Now, how to develop that background knowledge? Communication is one way, though I still don't think the system administrator is going to feel it is worth the time. And unfortunately, experience is another way. Yes, this implies that some small mistakes probably will be made initially -- by both users and system administrators -- and that tolerance of them is very important. But it also implies that there are learning and growth processes, and provides for taking them into account. This would surely result in a more positive, cooperative environment which encourages constructive problem resolution as opposed to attempting to beat problems to death with policies. Seems like an "everyone wins" situation to me... -- Helen C. O'Boyle | Disclaimer: just a VCU grad student in no isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | way speaking for the University 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: 13 Jul 91 15:15:08 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jul13.141842.15316@oar.net> Organization: Viento Gigabit Testbed, Ohio Supercomputer Center From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!paperboy!think.com!sdd.hp.com!caen!malgudi!osc.edu!karl.kleinpaste@world.std.com References: , <16945@life.ai.mit.edu>.mit.ed Subject: Re: Ohio State Pre-disclaimer: I do not represent OSU Academic Computing Services; this is just me. I do not represent OSU Academic Computing Services; this is just me. I do not represent OSU Academic Computing Services; this is just me. Four things. 1. Organizational note. What was once OSU's IRCC (instructional and research computer center) organization was renamed ACS (academic computing services) a number of months back (about 8, I think) at its own request. This was due to the fact that then-IRCC's focus had long since shifted from "computer center"-like activities, leaning much more heavily to network and workstation support and related things. However, they do still run the Big Bluish Beasties as well. 2. Bogosity check. helen@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu writes: [Kadie] goes on to discuss nine charges/complaints regarding Mr. Brack's alleged actions... ??> 3) being expelled by ACS from all University networks Kadie's comment on this was: CK> This is not an offense on Mr. Brack's part. If ACS expelled Mr. Brack CK> without due process, they have committed an offense. I could not agree more! You are agreeing with what is, to the very best of my knowledge, a factually incorrect statement in the first place. I believe that ACS does not have the authority to ban someone from the entire university's networks. They are responsible for the health of their own systems (hpuxa and magnus, notably), and for the campus Proteon ring and its off-campus connections. They are not responsible for, and have no authority over, individual departments' machines and subnetworks. If EE or CIS or Speech&Hearing or Ag wants to give Mr Brack access, they can do so, and they can let him use email & news, too, if they want. If ACS determines that Mr Brack is the source of some other network offense while operating from such other machines, then ACS technically has the authority to, e.g., disconnect the entity as a whole. ACS has never done such a thing, nor even threatened to do so. Believe me, if they'd even threatened such a thing, it would have been big news around campus. ACS has no authority over individuals' access to other departments' machines. 3. The topic of Mr Brack came up very, very briefly (all of about 4 sentences' worth) in last Thursday's network working group meeting. Dr Robert Dixon, ACS director, noted that, per the OSU Academic Misconduct Committee, ACS will have no response to the current debate pending completion of the Committee's investigation. 4. Dr Dixon also observed, in the 3rd of those 4 sentences, that there is "much more to the situation than has been said [in the newsgroups]." Post-disclaimer: I do not represent OSU Academic Computing Services; this is just me. I do not represent OSU Academic Computing Services; this is just me. I do not represent OSU Academic Computing Services; this is just me, recalling things said in a public forum 2 days ago. neither postmaster nor newsadmin any more, and thank heavens for small favors, --karl 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, 13 Jul 1991 15:40:53 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jul13.154053.19782@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: kadie References: , <16945@life.ai.mit.edu>, <1991Jul13.141842.15316@oar.net> Subject: Re: Ohio State I thank Karl Kleinpaste for posting. Several email notes to me have said maybe folks at ACS would like to join the debate, but can not. the debate. Thus, except for (my notes of) the charges against Mr. Brack, this debate is likely lopsided. karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu writes: [...] >I believe that ACS does not have the authority to ban someone from the >entire university's networks. They are responsible for the health of >their own systems (hpuxa and magnus, notably), and for the campus >Proteon ring and its off-campus connections. They are not responsible >for, and have no authority over, individual departments' machines and >subnetworks. According to Mr. Brack, ACS did banned him from all university networks. He says a literal reading of the "agreement" would prohibit him from using Ohio's computerized library system. I think Mr. Brack agrees with Mr. Klinepaste that such a ban (would/does) exceeds ACS's authority. >3. The topic of Mr Brack came up very, very briefly (all of about 4 >sentences' worth) in last Thursday's network working group meeting. >Dr Robert Dixon, ACS director, noted that, per the OSU Academic >Misconduct Committee, ACS will have no response to the current debate >pending completion of the Committee's investigation. Just a clarification. ACS tried but failed to level charges against Mr. Brack in the OSU Academic Misconduct Committee. Apparently someone involved in the Committee was wise enough to note that using two Macs at once in a nearly empty computer lab is not an academic offense. Mr. Brack *is* being charged by the Judicial Committee. This is the committee that would hear charges against a student who maliciously broke a window on University property. [I hope the punishment for allowing someone to charge a free print job your social security number is not more severe than the punishment for breaking a window.] >4. Dr Dixon also observed, in the 3rd of those 4 sentences, that there >is "much more to the situation than has been said [in the newsgroups]." [...] I posted (to the best of my ability) *all* the charges against Mr. Brack. Dr. Dixon's observation reminds me of something Senator Joseph McCarthy might have said. ("I have in my pocket a list of known hackers.") - 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: 13 Jul 91 17:12:32 GMT Message-Id: <16957@life.ai.mit.edu> Organization: The Internet From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu!helen@world.std.com References <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org>, <16945@life.ai.mit.edu>, <1991Jul13.082854.3398@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU>=a ~Subject: Re: Ohio State In article <1991Jul13.082854.3398@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> mickelp@prism.cs.orst.edu (Paul M. Mickel ) writes: >In article <16945@life.ai.mit.edu> helen@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Helen O'Boyle) writes: >[lots deleted for brevity] >> [...] It also sounds non-expedient >>from a system administrator's perspective. Not all system administrators >>are used to taking the time to do this. It will be seen as increasing >>their workload. "We" were busy enough doing support. We wouldn't want >>to spend time listening to users explain why they did things whose end >>result created more work for us; we'd just want to stop those things >>from happening again. [...] >>[...] System administrators don't want to be >>seen as tolerating too much, lest users get the idea that they can do >>ANYTHING without fear of reprisal. At the same time, users don't want >>to be blasted for doing something they didn't know was against rules. > >My question here is, in a sense, which comes first, the chicken or the egg? How about trying both at the same time.... VERY cautiously. >In this case, you cannot have a system that is used, yet you need people >knowledgeable in the system to handle admin problems. It seems to me that >the user must be given more consideration that you imply here, since w/o >the user, you have no system to admin. Oooops... My "expediency" comments, and any others which seemed to be less considerate of users, were meant to describe the kind of sysadmins who view users as more of an annoyance in their daily life (which involves keeping named running correctly, hacking features into Elm, testing file transfer systems and ... um ... displaying "interesting" GIFs on their workstations when they think no one is looking). Or to describe organizations which encourage that view. In the interview for one SA position, I was asked if I would be able to "stay away from the users", allowing the Help Desk to ALWAYS act as an intermediary (ie, SA wouldn't be able to talk to a user without a Help Desk person present). I would hope most sysadmins are encouraged to work more closely with their users (certainly we've seen examples of that here.... Sanjay Kapur, Wes Morgan, etc.). However, _some_ aren't, and I believe THAT is where the problem comes in. It is necessary to find a "business reason" for them to change (after all, they're happy NOW, going along their own merry way, trifling with users only when the administration thinks a user has "done wrong"), or they won't. This sounds unnecessarily cold, but it IS the way some of them think -- "business reason" is in quotes because someone I knew a couple years ago used that term in describing why it wasn't practical for him to learn more about the user comunity he was supposed to be serving. Remember that everyone is different. If you don't understand why a certain sys admin views things as he/she does, that sys admin probably doesn't understand why YOU view things as you do, either. It is not necessary to agree with everyone, but it sure can be helpful to understand why they hold the views they do, even (rather, especially) when those views differ from your own. >And the user who is unhappy w/ the >service is likely to take their work elsewhere, if possible. > [...] >Paul M. Mickel mickelp@prism.cs.orst.edu >Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331 >#include I like that line of reasoning a lot, but think that the key is "if possible." Many times, for undergraduates, there IS NO alternative. Assignments for certain classes are done on certain systems. Many times, the bulk of computing funding goes to the central campus computing organization, and individual departments just don't have the money to develop their own alternatives. The people who run these systems have a monopoly. They do not need to compete on "service" with anyone else, because in practicality there is no one else. Whether you think this is good or bad, the situation exists. It is necessary to work within this constraint, attempting to understand the position these people are in, to have even a moderate chance of improving the way things are. -- Helen C. O'Boyle | Disclaimer: just a VCU grad student in no isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | way speaking for the University 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: Sun, 14 Jul 1991 20:35:48 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jul14.203548.6278@eff.org> Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation From: kadie References: , <1991Jul11.145817.9405@eff.org>, <1991Jul11.153712.9886@eff.org> Subject: You can help (was Ohio State) You may be able to help Steven Brack. Steven would be greatful for e-mail letters of support. He will offers these letters to the Ohio State Judicial Affairs Committee as evidence for his position that many the charges against him are ridiculous or petty. (In the worst case, Steven will be expelled for typing "fuck you" to alt.flame [intentionally] and rec.aquaria [accidentally]). Even very short notes may be helpful. The address to write to is: sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com I know from notes and e-mail that some people think that Steven "needs an attitute adjustment". (I hope that a bad attitude is not a hanging offense at Ohio State University.) Even if you don't want to support Steven personally, I urge you write a letter in support of the principles of free expression and fair play. If you have specific information that could help Steven; that would, of course, be especially welcome. If you fear my characterization of the charges against Steven is inaccurate, I suggest you preface your letter with something like "If Carl Kadie's characterization of the charges against Steven Brack is accurate, ..." I'm enclosing my original critique of the charges against Steven. There is more information in recent notes in the alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and comp.admin.policy newsgroups (and in the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list). - Carl Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.