Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) July 21, 1991 Vol. 1, No. 17 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. [The first note in this collection argues that "to make judgments about either Mr. Brack or Ohio State's ACS group at this point would be grossly unfair." The next three notes follow up on this discussion. (The second note strongly criticizes a comment I made last week.) The next two notes discuss freedom of expression on the net. The second note includes a *proposed* U.S. constitutional amendment that would explicitly guarantee many civil liberties on computers, networks, and other technology. If you are interested in these topics, you may enjoy the comp.org.eff.talk and comp.org.eff.news newsgroups. Two notes discuss a user's recourse if he or she is treated unfairly. A user shares her personal experience that in practice effective recourse is more difficult than theory would suggest. The penultimate note asks about computers and academic freedom when more grade and high schools are on the net. In the last note, a sys admin reports that he is able maintain his system without reading user email. - Carl] In this issue: Steve Romig 108 Computers and Academic Fr<>ersion) 1.15 [should be 1.16?] karl.kleinpaste 25 > garys 16 > visix!news 17 > Dean Gottehrer 135 Freedom of communication Dean Gottehrer 69 27th Amendment betsys 33 helen 291 "User recourse" (LONG) (was: Ohio State) stan k ii 70 say it aint so, joe gl8f 31 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. Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 11:44:44 -0400 From: Steve Romig Message-Id: <9107151544.AA12012@sonofa.cis.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.15 [should be 1.16?] [Carl Kadie:] >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. I know that the ACS employees have been instructed not to discuss this case on the net. I suspect that this is at least in part due to concern for Mr. Brack's privacy in this affair. [Karl Kleinpaste:] >>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. > [Carl Kadie:] >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. Discussions about the various "charges" seem somewhat moot to me. The rest of us aren't privy to the original copy of those accusations, and so we don't know whether this is a correct representation of what ACS tol Mr. Brack, or whether he has misunderstood or is misrepresenting their statements to him. Not that I'm accusing him of doing so, but I think that we should bear in mind that we have not heard from both sides of the case, and that to make judgements about either Mr. Brack or Ohio State's ACS group at this point would be grossly unfair. [Karl Kleinpaste:] >>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]." >[...] > [Carl Kadie:] >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.") Sigh. Or maybe Dr. Dixon simply (and literally) meant that there was more to the case than had appeared in the newsgroups. He certainly has at least one good reason for NOT making more information known: consideration for Mr. Brack's privacy in this case. McCarthy is a convenient demon to conjure up, but I think the comparison is needless and unfair to Dr. Dixon. It seems to me to be a bit unjust (or at least premature) to make any claims about whether ACS is treating Mr. Brack unjustly or not, since we don't have access to the the rest of the facts (the other side of the story). I doubt that we are likely to get an account of ACS's side at any point. If the University's Judicial Affairs Committee decides against Stephen on any of the charges brought up against him (which are not necessarily the same as the ones that Carl has posted), does that automatically make that an unjust decision? Can we really claim anything like that without access to the rest of the story? That seems to be what some people are saying, and that strikes me as unjust. --- Steve Romig, CIS Department, The Ohio State University ------------------- >From kadie Thu Jul 18 11:19:57 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 18 11:18:26 EDT 1991 In this issue: act31797@uxa.cso.u : Re: Freedom of communication Jim Nettleman Organization: Viento Gigabit Testbed, Ohio Supercomputer Center From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi!osc.edu!karl.kleinpaste@uunet.uu.net References: , <9107151544.AA12012@sonofa.cis.ohio-state.edu>udi Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.15 [should be 1.16?] [Karl Kleinpaste:] >>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]." [Carl Kadie:] >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.") Blow it out your ear. Rather than searching fervently for evidence which simply supports your worst fears, perhaps you should consider that the folks at ACS are aware that they're being painted with a hideously broad brush and with the rudest strokes imaginable, and that Dr Dixon was saying nothing more than that there exist issues regarding the situation, presumably on the ACS side, which have not been seen on the Usenet. That's all. A hunt for nefarious motives will get you nowhere. And Kadie, if you must quote me, at least have the common decency to learn to spell my name correctly. flammable, --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: 19 Jul 91 21:01:20 GMT Message-Id: <19035@helios.TAMU.EDU> Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University From: cs.utexas.edu!helios!garys@uunet.uu.net References: , <9107151544.AA12012@sonofa.cis.ohio-state.edu>, <1991Jul19.162337.28426@oar.net> Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.15 [should be 1.16?] In article <1991Jul19.162337.28426@oar.net> karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu writes: > A hunt for nefarious motives >will get you nowhere. Yes, but defending accusations with 'there is more to the situation than has been said' will also get you nowhere. Until someone comes foward and gives the real meaning behind 'there is more to the situation than has been said' the folks at ACS will continue to be suspect. If they don't come forward out of respect for privacy, good for them. But I for one always question unsupported claims. - gary (osu stands for oklahoma state university) smith 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, 21 Jul 91 22:52:22 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jul21.225222.790@visix.com> Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA From: visix!news@uunet.uu.net References: , <9107151544.AA12012@sonofa.cis.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Re: Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) 1.15 [should be 1.16?] In article <19035@helios.TAMU.EDU> garys@cs.tamu.edu (Gary Wayne "Batman" Smith) writes: Until someone comes foward and gives the real meaning behind 'there is more to the situation than has been said' the folks at ACS will continue to be suspect. I have found that "there is more to the situation than has been said" is almost always true, in any context. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. -- Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda -- "Trust in Allah, but tie your camel." --Arabic proverb Message-Id: <9107180458.AA23651@eff.org> From: "Dean Gottehrer" Subject: Freedom of communication Thanks to William Hugh Murray, Pete Hartman and Amanda Walker for their responses to my note yesterday on freedom of communication. My comments: Thanks to Mr. Murray for supporting the model I presented and supporting the idea of greater freedom. I have read his posts here and on other forums and have admired his ability to be lucid and concise, attributes we all could emulate more. He discusses the conflict in our dialogue being at the extremes. I suspect we are not fully at the extremes, but we are probably pretty close. I also would strongly support the desire he has that we be polite, considerate, judicious and conservative. But I must most respectfully disagree with him when he says, "The way to defend this freedom is by responsible models and responsible behavior, not by defending the extremes." I have no problem with responsible models and responsible behavior. In my view, however, our freedom and our democracy is tested at the extremes. Our tolerance for extreme speech and behavior demonstrates the breadth of our freedom. Without tolerance of extreme speech and behavior we have limited our freedoms. This is the same principle attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If we don't defend the rights of communists, nazis, fascists, Trotskyites, skin heads, dopers and all other kinds of people Mr. Murray and I might find socially abhorrent or outcasts, where do we draw the line between what is free to be spoken and what is not free to be spoken. (Parenthetically, that's the danger of the recent Supreme Court opinion on abortion counseling--where will the court draw the line between what people who receive government subsidies can and cannot say.) We *are* lucky to live in a world that tolerates diversity and even celebrates it (I, for one at least, do). And I would never confuse those extremes for the norm. But I think we must defend the extreme in the name of freedom or we soon will see our freedom diminished if not lost. I also think that the likelihood of the nets continuing without some sort of regulation through a more or less desirable model, is nil. In our litigous society, someone will eventually file a suit that will wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court and we will have regulation of communication via computer. For me that is not a matter of if, but rather one of when. The only way that might be prevented is through legislative intervention or the 27th Amendment Professor Tribe proposes. I'm willing to put energy in to discussing what the model should be because I think the court will listen to those of us who have thought about this when it tries to decide the question. Pete Hartman asks why not see the computer as a press and the network as a common carrier. I see no problem in considering my home computer and printer as a press. I do have a problem considering the mainframe I dial in to as a press. As its owner, I am responsible for what I publish from my home computer. I would not want to see the owners of mainframes made responsible for what is published from their computers. If they are made responsible, they will have to read what is published and exercise the rights of publishers, which are to decide what is and is not published. Ever try to make your local newspaper print an ad that it disagrees with or does not like for some reason--it does not have to and you can't make it. Freedom of the press belongs to the person who owns one, to paraphrase H.L. Mencken. That's why I much prefer something akin to common carrier or public forum models where regulation is diminished and freedom flourishes. Amanda Walker raises a number of issues I have been thinking about a lot in recent months (maybe even years). The one that hits closest to home is her view of the net as more of an elite private message service rather than a utility. If the net or whatever electronic superhighway we devise eventually creates the global mind, I worry about those who have neither the financial or intellectual wherewithal to gain access to it. If we are going to avoid the creation of information elites or information haves and have-nots, we have to do something to provide free and easy access for those who do not have the money it takes to somehow get access to the net. We have somewhat begun to confront this problem in Alaska with our state government. Because of the distances from many parts of Alaska to our capital in Juneau (remember, we are the biggest state in land area of the 50--if we were divided in half, Texas would become the third largest state!), it is not possible for people to travel there to lobby or testify. So when the pressure was on to move the capital to Anchorage, where half the state's population lives, the response was to create a legislative information system. It is a combination of teleconferenced committee hearings and meetings when enough people (usually one or two) request them and a computerized system for looking at what the legislature is doing. That system is available in what many of you would think of as minor population centers (I think some of them are in places with populations under 500) and it is freely accessible. I can dial in from home and find out anything I want about bills that have been introduced, their history and where they are in the process and when they will be heard next if a hearing has been scheduled. That system would not work if it were not provided to all Alaskans free at their Legislative Information Office. We recently enacted legislation that will allow state agencies to sell electronic products and services. I was successful in persuading the person who sponsored the bill to include a provision that any database offered for sale will be provided free to the public on a publicly available terminal. In short, I agree with Ms. Walker that we have a ways to go, but here too I think our freedom is at stake and this will be a battle for our democracy. She raises another question that concerns me and that is the different perceptions different folks have about the purpose of the computers and how news and email can confound those purposes. I am beginning to think that part of the model needs to allow for different purposes for different computers for reasons of resource allocation. Much as I would like to see every computer hooked up to the net with everyone having email and news access, I realize that that may not be economically viable in some situations. Some computer operators may have to decide that news and email are not in their mission. My response is, fine. As long as everyone who gets a userid on that computer knows that and is treated the same I have no problem. I think universities should provide faculty, staff and students access to computers that have access to the net, but nothing in the models I propose would force them to do that. Problems will arise where universities decide to take computers that did have access and remove it. I haven't figured out a way to deal with that. I suppose if they do it with sufficient advance notice to their users, they should have that right. Much as I would like to see it happen, I haven't figured out a way to compel any institution to provide free and easy access to the net to everyone. I just don't think we can establish that as a right. Ms. Walker is also correct that there are other concerns we have to consider beyond those analagous to free speech. I think they will likely fall into line once we can get some sort of decision on what model will be used to regulate (or not) computer communication. Finally, a short word on absolutist views of libel and slander. My education and background is as a journalist, so these subjects are ones that have affected me directly from time to time. Speech can be a weapon of deadly force, at least metaphorically. Owning that tool of deadly force does not mean I can use it to murder anyone at random, to paraphrase Ms. Walker. I worry about individuals truly harmed by speech done in knowing disregard for the truth. While that happens rarely, the problem exists and remedies should exist. I could say more, but I would rather be concise now. Thanks again to one and all who participated and read. That's the joy of the net. Dean M. Gottehrer Anchorage, Alaska Message-Id: <9107200443.AA08721@eff.org> From: "Dean Gottehrer" Subject: 27th Amendment Here's the text of the 27th Amendment: This Constitution's protection for freedoms of speech, press, petition and assembly, and the protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, shall be construed as fully applicable without regard to the technological method or medium through which information content is generated, stored, altered, transmitted, or controlled. For those who may not be familiar with Laurence Tribe, who proposes this amendment, he is Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School and is one of the nation's foremost scholars studying the Supreme Court and Constitutional Law. I'd like to clarify a few things in the discussion today about privacy. 1. Privacy was not considered by our Founding Fathers. The right of privacy was first articulated by Brandeis when he was a student or soon after he graduated in a Harvard Law Review article in the late 19th century, as I recall. 2. Privacy does not lead to chaos. The concept was built around the idea that there are somethings we all (or most of us) expect will be private. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that expectation in the penumbra (their word, not mine) of a number of amendments to the constitution. Simply put, there are areas where government has no business being. The bedroom is one of the places and it led to legalizing contraceptive devices (yup, it was illegal to possess them or to tell people about them once upon a time in some states) and was also key in the argument to legalize abortion--that is a matter between a woman and her physician, the court said in Roe v. Wade. The right of privacy does not imply that you can do whatever you want as long as it is private. (Although the Alaska Supreme Court did legalize personal use of marijuana under the state's constitutional right of privacy. It was made illegal under a referendum last year and it will be interesting to see what the court does when that law is challenged.) You can't kill someone in private and claim privacy to get away with it. But there are areas where you have an expectation of privacy and the government has no right to invade them. Also, there are occasions when what is normally expected to be private may be looked at when violation of the law is suspected with reasonable cause. You can't look at my bank account and neither can the government. But the government can if it finds some evidence I have committed a crime and evidence of that crime can be found in my bank records. Many states make circulation records at libraries private. I don't want the government looking at the books I check out to see what I am reading. There is a long history of privacy law dating back to Brandeis and I don't believe it has led to chaos in this country. But that's just my humble opinion and I suspect others will disagree. Finally, I don't think that a privacy amendment to the constition would accomplish all of the same things Professor Tribe's amendment would. What he is talking about is extending the rights we already have under the constitution to anything new that technology can devise. For me it would certainly clear up the questions of whether you are free to say what you want on the computer of a state university tied into the net. It would clearly extend that right. And I think it would also prevent unreasonable searches and seizures on computers at state universities and require due process. While I don't give it much chance of ever being written into the constitution, I think it will draw attention to the problems and it offers a good political point from which to start. As I've said before, I think the courts will establish these rights for us once a sufficient number of cases create law. Unless there is a sudden uprising of opinion, and I don't sense it except in relatively few places, the Congress is not likely to act. Nevertheless, I think the amendment would be beneficial. Dean M. Gottehrer Anchorage, Alaska 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: 17 Jul 91 17:16:51 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jul17.171651.14481@cs.umb.edu> Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston From: ukma!psuvax1!hsdndev!cs!ra.cs.umb.edu!betsys@seismo.css.gov References <1991Jul15.141516.20768@eng.umd.edu>, <1991Jul15.203851.7073@visix.com>, <1991Jul16.150130.29953@eng.umd.edu> ~Subject: Re: Ohio State In article <1991Jul16.150130.29953@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >Official grievance channels? I don't know about ACS, but we don't have any >here. That is what I was proposing. Here, if a sysadmin does something to >a student, the student has the options to >1) Beg and plead with sysadmin and superiors >2) break the rules >3) Bend over and take it. If a sysadmin does something to a student which affects that student's studies in any way, the student may appeal to: 1) their academic advisor 2) their department chair 3) the appropriate Dean of Studies 4) the grievance comittee (usually the student/faculty senate) All colleges should have something like this in their regulations. If your studies are affected, there is an appeals process. It may not be specifically computer related, but it must be there. I beleive all accredited universities have similar poliies. It sounds to me like most of the painful stories here happened because two people got into a fight and then started charging around looking for emotional support. A good mediator could solve most of these issues. A good policy could prevent quite a few of them but no policy can cover every possibility. You've just GOT to be able to talk things through! -- Betsy Schwartz Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu System Administrator BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU U-Mass Boston Computer Science Dept. Harbor Campus Boston, MA 02125-3393 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: 17 Jul 91 21:38:04 GMT Message-Id: <17042@life.ai.mit.edu> Organization: The Internet From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!ai-lab!wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu!helen@uunet.uu.net References: , <1991Jul16.133123.25502@ms.uky.edu>te. Subject: "User recourse" (LONG) (was: Ohio State) Since this discussion seems to have taken a turn here and there, it looked like time for a new thread name that more closely fits. In article <1991Jul16.133123.25502@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes: >helen@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Helen O'Boyle) writes: >>I would like for it to be as easy for a student to challenge a sysadmin's >>action as it is for a sysadmin to challenge a student's action. Wes adds.... >I agree [ ... users ... ] should have such rights. >However, Helen then writes: >>Only trouble is, it takes DAYS to prepare a good complaint letter >There's an inconsistency here. >[...] you want the student/user to >have an effortless means of complaint/appeal? If something is worth >fighting for, it's worth the expenditure of some effort. An inconsistency? In the procedures? Yes. In my rhetoric? I beg to differ. I did not advocate an "effortless" avenue of recourse for the user in all cases. However, it is reasonable to want the effort required to bring action against either side to be near-equal, such that there is at least a small disincentive to each side to pursue unnecessary actions. At VCU, the procedures are currently biased in favor of the sysadmin (no assumptions made about anywhere else, not even the current status at my undergrad institution). >This underlying thread has been rampant in these discussions. No offended >party wants to seek help within the University. Not entirely true, in my case. In fact, I sought help SOLELY within the University. It's that we (or at least I) tried and found it doing so to be more difficult than we (I) ever would have believed possible. Not only did it prove extremely difficult to convince people something was going on which needed to be stopped, but I found many people unwilling to listen to 5 minutes worth of my concerns. > We've seen such phrases >as "I'm too busy to go sit in an office to complain" or "I didn't ask for >help from my advisor because he just wouldn't understand". That, dear >readers, is a crock. Wes, a couple of points about _my_ situation, which might explain why the first (or second) response of someone who finds him or herself in this situation might not always be the most rational or the most effective: 1. They broadcast accusations of my wrongdoing, across most of the University computing world before I'd lost enough Freshman naivete to understand the structure of the school or even detect that the complaints about "that user" referred to me. 2. I was accustomed to believing everything said by an authority figure and thus spent several months SERIOUSLY wondering if I truly was as much of a "computer criminal" as the sysadmin claimed. I could believe that I didn't completely understand the rules of electronic community, yet doubted that in my well-intentioned ignorance I could possibly have violated them as severely as was alleged. In order to accept that I did perhaps have a justifiable reason for complaint, I first had to change some of my core beliefs and accept that the sysadmin might be at least partially wrong. 3. For someone who spent her life in parochial school collecting scholastic and service awards, the fact that "this is happening to me" takes a minute or two to sink in, and it takes even longer to understand how to defend oneself against it. 4. I _was_ a computer novice and didn't even understand some of their accusations against me. 5. I'd never experienced a bureaucracy before. There are a whole list of phrases which describe this feeling, including "Help, I don't know where to turn!" and "I will seek help from anyone who might effectively provide it." College students are often notoriously lacking in maturity, University connections, and background. What may be your first choice, or mine today, might not be someone else's -- not because it's not a wonderful idea, or because the student didn't expend a specific degree of effort thinking of alternatives, but because other factors were involved. > If you have a problem, WORK TOWARD A RESOLUTION! All my posts have had a basic undercurrent of "Please, everyone, communicate and cooperate!", which is my summary opinion on this issue and many problems in the world today. When working as a sysadmin in the Real World, I tried to follow that from "the other side of the fence" as well, to avoid problems before a resolution became necessary. >What's wrong with expending a bit of effort for something about which >you feel so strongly? Nothing! It acts as a "barrier-to-entry" to the Bureaucratic War Zone, and is thus a Good Thing if it applies to everyone. If the University requires a student user to do hundreds of hours of work to defend himself against a sysadmin who did much less work to put the user into water hot enough that a defense is required, however, I understand (not necessarily "condone") the student's inclination to feel annoyed. This is THE FIRST time I have discussed my situation in a public forum. Prior to the resolution in the mid-1980's, my free time was spent on action, not on rallying The World to my cause. However, I see it as constructive to mention it, more than 5 years after the fact. I'd like to see the related issues discussed enough by both users and system administrators that some consensus can be reached on how to avoid these situations, and how to solve them least-painfully when they do occur. Part of this includes identifying what leads to such situations. >Just out of curiosity, to whom did you present your problem? [long >list of alternatives, all addressed in the next paragraphs]. I don't >think that your jerk sys-admin could reach *all* of those people. I would not have thought so either! Alas, the perception that such an awkward situation is "not possible" contributes to the problem, because it delays its recognition even further. If anyone gets anything out of all the posts on this subject, let it be "it CAN happen," and if it does, denial of it will exacerbate the situation. My initial attempts were to enlist the assistance of the faculty of the two computer-related departments in which I was taking classes. I had not yet declared a major, and did not have a faculty advisor (though after I had declared my majors, I went to my advisors for help). Some, the sysadmin had reached first, others did not wish to speak up on my behalf (especially true for the many untenured). I went to the Deans whose authority included those academic departments. Wrong chain of command, since they had no administrative authority over the academic campus computer center, which was not an academic department at all, and could do nothing outside of chat unofficially with the person in question (tried... didn't work). Over the years, a number of faculty wrote letters in my defense. Others said they could not afford the political problems it could create for their departments, since the central computing department apparently had a bit of a say in departmental computing funding as well. Nothing helped. There was no Ombudsman -- and VCU doesn't have one either. When I read that Ohio State did, my reaction was, "Wow, what a WONDERFUL idea! Every school should do that!". The Dean of Student Affairs also took the sysadmin's word for things, as did the Vice President for Academic Affairs (the director's boss), and the Med-school and Administrative computer centers. Pragmatically, it is much "safer", and the path of least resistance / least expected hassle in a bureaucratic environment, to believe the PhD director of a campus computing center and all his staff who would back him up, than to believe a student accused of wrongdoing and a few faculty who'd take the political risk of stating to others that the student hasn't had a fair chance. Again, I think much of the problem is that I did not recognize its existence until gossip had made the rounds SO far and wide that there was No Way the damage could ever be undone. This was during the "War Games" era, when suspicion to the point of paranoia was socially acceptable. People refused outright to tell me what the accusations were, preferring to say, "You know what you've done". They did not officially charge me with any of it, nor did they present evidence on which the accusations were based (nor would anyone else acknowledge to me that they'd seen any). Still the range of my "activities" was "common knowledge", because people heard it from "a reliable source." >>[regarding defending oneself against excessive sysadmin'ing] >>It is not fun, and in most cases is not worth the trouble. >It's "not worth the trouble", but it's easy enough to post to Usenet >about it? That's great. If you don't want to expend any effort, how >can you ever expect change to occur? As stated in a previous post, I _did_ expend SUBSTANTIAL effort, and still _do_ today. Constructive effort. I now try to see that no one at my current institution get into the same no-win situation. This entails both occasionally defending the actions of well-meaning students to sys admins I know, AND helping students learn in such a way that mistakes which impact the system, and bad impressions left on sysadmins, are minimized. Disclaimer: I am not a VCU "cracker defender," and consistently refuse to help such people when they ask. > Most of the people who have been >slighted by sysadmins seem to see themselves as Don Quixote, tilting >against the administrative windmill. You have other resources available >to you in the bureaucratic morass; use them! Yes, Wes Morgan, there are other resources available, such as the Provost's office and the University's general conduct policy. It took three years before I'd even known something like that, which governed faculty and staff as well as students, existed AND could pertain to my situation. It's not that I hadn't asked, or hadn't looked for such a document on my own. Even once I knew the TITLE of the policy, it STILL took a week to find someone with a copy! It took another several months to to steel my conscience to the idea of "attacking" someone else (via charges of violation of the conduct policy) as a defense of myself. I could bring myself to do it only when it appeared that my academic future at the University would be extremely jeopardized if I did not. The 7 page, 19 count grievance accused him of harassment -- including the monitoring of my email and files, malicious untrue comments which harmed my academic reputation, and a creative charge that I had violated the school computer use policy, which was apparently due to the sysadmin noticing that I had made some uncomplimentary but true statements about him in private email to other students. After four years of unfounded accusations, my mail was the first and only thing he prosecuted me for -- by that time, his accusations no longer had the same effect, since members of the university had recently begun to question his judgement on other dissimilar matters as well, and I was acquiring the community support an unknown first year student typically lacks. Also included in my allegations were denial-of-service concerns which would sound familiar to Mr. Brack. Overkill, but in years, this was the first idea which stood a chance of resolving the situation. The potential ramifications of the action did not hit home until the faculty investigator on the case asked me, "What do you want to see happen to him as a result of your grievance?". My reply: "Please, just make him stop." The grievance was found to have merit. When the person in question failed to comply with the (confidential) terms of the resolution, it was necessary for the Provost to remind him of them again. This situation was only one of a number of political problems the admin had at work, and several months later, his staff employment contract was not renewed. Final notification of the resolution was given me only after I had written to the Governor of the state in which I was attending school, requesting that he intercede on my behalf. It is likely that the grievance, which took the department TOTALLY BY SURPRISE, would not have been as effective if they had not maintained the view, "She's just an undergrad who already has a reputation as trouble on school computers (created and reinforced by them!). She can't do anything to us. No one will listen to her." What they did not take into account was that the director's credibility had eroded somewhat, and mine had increased somewhat (as a non-student computing employee of the university), to the point that my concerns could not be laughed off as those of a student troublemaker, whereas they might have been, years before. AT LAST some people had been able to take a neutral view of the situation (whereas previously, they had been certain that the sysadmin was right), and reason prevailed. >A sysadmin or computing staff would certainly pay attention to any of >the following: > - Email from a significant number of users (real email, not > just some form letter) Tried it, among friends and acquaintances. Didn't work. It made things worse, as it was perceived as an attempt to round up a "hacker gang." Similar to another poster's experience, these students, MERELY by being associated with me, became targets themselves (and were not happy about it, thus worsening "The Gulf of Understanding"). At least one was not considered for a job at school because of it. Another faced charges under the Computer Use policy for engaging in an activity other students did, and continued to do, with no objection by the administration. > - A petition loaded with user signatures (faculty and staff > signatures would help your case even more) > - The typical college newspaper *loves* a rhubarb; why not > invite them to do a story? Didn't want to advertise what I considered a private matter to the world. It should not be necessary for a student to forego his/her privacy to gain relief from such a situation. I wanted to avoid "stirring up the waters" at all costs, because the sysadmin in question had threatened to blackball me, in terms of local computer related employment, and any references for which he was asked (I once worked for his department), if I openly challenged his actions. Since he had been able to get a false statement inserted into my University records, I believed he could do it even if the school tried to stop him. It appeared that he would find some way to wave a petition or newspaper article in such a manner as it would help _his_ case, not mine. "Not worth it", not because of TIME but because of increased risk to me. > - A group of calm, well-spoken users who want to pre- > sent a problem in a rational manner. Tried it. Didn't work. > - If you have "local" Usenet groups, start a discussion there. Wes, the EXACT SAME administrator justified our school's TOTAL lack of NetNews by saying that some student might post something which was "embarrassing to the school" (Hi Mr. Brack, reading this? ;-). However, Wes, I agree, that's a good list of suggestions on where to start. Some people may refer to this discussion as a continued flamefest, but I believe it is valid to engage in a bit of brainstorming on the subject, undisciplined though it may be at times, in order that we all learn a bit more about the issues involved. I like to read about the creative ideas that some people have come up with. Lest it turn into a flamefest with three vocal people on each side, and the rest wondering when those people will give up, further comments on my specific experience will be addressed ONLY in email. I hope other prominent posters in this thread will follow suit. >I'm sure that a little thought will generate more ideas along these >lines. If, in your opinion, these ideas require "too much effort", then >I don't think you're taking this problem seriously. > > morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan > morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC > morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu OK, then let me make a suggestion. Since many of the same suggestions appear over and over, let's collect a "non-editorial" list of such ideas and put them somewhere in the comp.admin.policy or caf archives. That way, people might be able to benefit from more ideas than they can think up themselves at a moment's notice if they find themselves or a friend in this situation. Likewise, what about a list of creative ways for sysadmins to deal with these situations? -- Helen C. O'Boyle | Disclaimer: just a VCU grad student in no isy5hob@cabell.vcu.edu | way speaking for the University Message-Id: <9107171705.AA11091@eff.org> 6041; Wed, 17 Jul 91 11:02:37 CDT Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 11:00:08 CDT From: stan kulikowski ii Subject: say it aint so, joe the nren discussion group from psi has been chewing on the censorship issue since a reporter from the houston chronicle came online asking for some information about networking. someone then wrote in that from previous experience, he was not be trusted to faithfully report what he gathered. eventually his previous article was entered into the discussion, it started with a description of a high school kid reading alt.sex on his terminal... networks were described as government-supported repositories of pornographic filth. sure, sensationalism designed to sell newspapers. in this group we have not really chewed on what academic freedom means to the lower grades levels. this issue of pornography is certain to be foremost on the minds of K-12 networkers, probably overshadowing most positive uses of network facilities. much like 'moral turpitude' is the achilles heel of tenure, censorship seems to be the weakness of the uniform network access which we assume is part of what is needed for future academic freedom. thought i would stick in a pointer to this discussion. stan . stankuli@UWF.bitnet === | | close your eyes, my darling, or three of them at least --- -- old venusian lullaby ============================================================================== !> !> Message-Id: <9107161420.AA06503@fernwood.mpk.ca.us> !> Subject: Re: The shibboleth of censorship? !> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 07:20:25 MST !> From: the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow !> !> !> >While pornography is an issue in the US, it is not an issue for many of !> >the other countries connected to the Internet. !> ... !> >So an odd problem is that while one may not want pornography in the US !> >part of the Internet, the US-part of the Internet is connected to a !> >number of countries where having pornography on the network is both !> >legally and socially OK. !> !> Wasn't it last year (early this year?), after all the CONUS alt.sex.* !> archive sites were closed down by Governement Powers That Be, that an !> archive site 'cross the big puddle opened for business/was known to exist !> for the convenience of network users in Europe? My memory gets hazy at !> this point (and I'd recommend any reporter wanting to write a story about !> it to check out all the facts) that the US folk hungry for net.porno !> started using this NON-CONUS archive site so much it totally swamped the !> inter-country link. At some point a US Government Employee of a federal !> funding agency "ordered?" the non-CONUS archive site to pull the plug on !> the porno stuff under threat of disconnection from the Global Internet !> (i.e. the same threat that has been leveled against the CONUS archive !> sites). !> !> Don't actions like these potentially put the Government in the role of !> censor? !> !> How is threatening to pull the net.plug on a CONUS or NON-CONUS archive !> site, much different from, say, pulling a museum's or an artists federally !> funded endowment just because a person in the Government food chain didn't !> like the "art"/"material"? !> !> How are standards set for what is OK to put on an Internet archive site? !> What body sets them? Where are they published? How to system !> administrators and users find out about them? !> 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: 19 Jul 91 18:18:17 GMT Message-Id: <1991Jul19.181817.5287@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia From: haven.umd.edu!uvaarpa!murdoch!fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@purdue.edu References <16989@life.ai.mit.edu>, <1991Jul18.191611.6084@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, <6596@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>ia. ~Subject: Re: Ohio State In article <6596@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> rick@pavlov.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes: >In article <1991Jul18.191611.6084@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >> >> Claiming that computer administrators must be able to do anything they >> want to any file on the system in order to perform their duties is a >> silly argument, and goes against what the Electronic Communications >> Privacy Act mandates, if your users have an expectation of privacy. > >Please don't take this the wrong way, but are you a systems administrator? Yes. I find that I have no trouble keeping my system running without reading my user's email. If I need access to a file to debug a print symbiont, I ask the user to see their file. Nobody is unhappy. >Also, the ECPA specifically allow systems administrators access to user >Email for the purpose of maintaining the quality of service. Right. But I have no problem maintaining my email without looking at my users' mail without their permission. My sense of ethics requires that since I don't NEED to do so, I will not do so. >I also expect that any system administrator will have the ethical sense to >keep what they learn as part of their duties to themselves. I hope so also. That's why I point out (frequently) that there are very few reasons, if any, to be in a position to learn things "like that" as part of their duties. And I don't believe I need a rule that states that I can access any file for any reason at any time.