Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) August 18, 1991 Vol. 1, No. 22 Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org) Circulation: William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org) Publication: Helen C. O'Boyle (helen@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, June, and July. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file academic/abstracts. Disclaimer: This CAF-news was compiled by me, Carl M. Kadie. It is not an EFF publication. The views I express and editorial decisions I make are my own. [This week in CAF-News includes the beginning of a discussion about when universities can legitimately restrict free expression on computers. (Is it enough, for example, to declare a computer "for classwork only"?) The third article explains that users are required to keep their passwords confidential to increase accountability. Next, a note explains that although private universities do not have Constitutional obligations to their students, they often have contractual obligations to their students to provide, for example, provide due process. Another note argues that the university lawyer cannot be trusted to give a correct opinion on proposed computer policies. And a note lists three books on library selection policy. These books would be useful to anyone who wants to setup a newsgroup selection policy that respects academic freedom. (The books also tell how to defend the selection of controversial books/newsgroups.) The last two notes list the abstracts of earlier issues of CAF-News. - Carl] In this issue: Carl M. Kadie 58 Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines Carl M. Kadie 83 > Pete Hartman 16 >System Maintenance/Security requirements Carl M. Kadie 30 >Public/Private institutions Carl M. Kadie 100 >Authority of Public Universities Carl M. Kadie 84 "Censorship and Selection" Carl M. Kadie 376 CAF-News Abstracts Carl M. Kadie 55 > 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: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 14:52:36 GMT From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Message-Id: <1991Aug14.145236.23462@eff.org> Subject: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines On July 31 in message <1489@cameron.egr.duke.edu>, jpe@egr.duke.edu (John P. Eisenmenger) writes: [...] >My machines are there to support the educational process. A student saving >megabytes of data, or using 90% of available CPU time for some cause s/he >supports could interfere with the other students getting their homework >assignments done. Our priorities have to lie with the students trying to >do their classwork. [...] I'm interested in distinguishing computers on which users are allowed free expression and those in which all extracurricular activity is legitimately prohibited. In many (maybe most cases) the whole issue can be finessed with quotas, adequate CPU and disk space, etc. But let's consider a scenario where the issue comes to a head: LOADED) CPU time and disk space is very tight. The computer (and its terminals & modems) are needed for class work all the time FORCLASS) The computer was acquired and is maintained for particular classes CONSISTENT) The prohibition is applied consistently (even the operators are prohibited from sending and receiving email not related to their duties.) FAIR) Enforcement of the policy never violates user privacy. (For example, there are no searches of disk space without the same authorization that would be need to search assigned office space.) Punishment for violations are similar to the punishment an instructor can give out (informal warnings, formal reprimands, formal suspensions for a few days, etc). All formal punishments are reported to the University; the student can ask for a hearing and can appeal. ALTERN) There is an alternative computer on which extracurricular activities are allowed. Under these conditions (LOADED & FORCLASS & CONSISTENT & FAIR & ALTERN) I think that extracurricular activities (such as reading this mailing list) can be prohibited without violating the academic freedom of the system users. Moreover, (for the sake of discussion) I claim that each condition is necessary and that together they are sufficient. I would be interested in arguments that challenge (or support) this claim. Also, how do real class-work-only machines stack up against these criteria? - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 18:22:41 GMT From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Message-Id: <1991Aug14.182241.26728@eff.org> References: <1991Aug14.145236.23462@eff.org>, <1991Aug14.165350.16513@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Re: Free Forum vs. Class-Work Only machines dysart@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mitchell D Dysart) writes: [...] >As for me (personally, *not* representing my employer The Ohio State >University), I think the only required conditions are: >1. System(s) is(are) expressly provided to support whatever > project or projects are specified, be these class use, > research use, administrative use, or whatever. >and >2. Fairness is maintained and misuse governed by appropriate > University-wide guidelines. >Now, isn't misuse of a computer that exists for instructional purposes >the same logical thing as performing unauthorized experiments in the >undergraduate general chemistry laboratory? In the latter case, nobody >would yell too loudly if the student were thrown out of the lab and >were therefore unable to complete his assignments and thus failed the class. [...] So the question is, "are CONSISTENCY & FAIRNESS & FORPURPOSE sufficient conditions?" [As Billy Arnold suggested, I'm replacing FORCLASS with FORPURPOSE. Also, we can assume that resources are abundant (NOT LOADED) and that no alternative exists (NOT ALTERN).] I think these conditions would be sufficient to prohibit unauthorized chemistry experiments; I do not, however, think that they are sufficient to prohibit free expression. The difference between free chemistry and free expression is that free expression is central to academic freedom. To quote from the first paragraph Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students: "Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and independent search for truth." Needless do say that free chemistry gets no such endorsement. Likewise, free expression (but not free chemistry) is explicitly protected by the First Amendment (at least at public universities) and in the student code of most universities). The closest analogy to the use of computers for extracurricular expression is the use of classrooms for extracurricular expression. To quote from the Student Code of the University of Illinois (my school): "III. Campus Expression A. Discussion and expression of all views is permitted within the University subject only to requirements for the maintenance of order. Support of any cause by orderly means which are not in violation of law and which do not disrupt the operation of the University nor interfere with the rights of others is permitted. B. Members and organizations in the University community may invite and hear any persons of their own choosing, subject only to reasonable requirements on time, place, and manner for use of University facilities." Also "The University's control of campus facilities should not be used as a device of censorship." If the computer is not loaded, then extracurricular expression will not disrupt the operation of the University. If there is no alternative machine, then reasonable requirements on the time, place, and manner of computer expression can't completely exclude use of that machine. The bottom line is this: The default mode for universities is (should be?) to allow, protect, and promote free expression. This default can only be overwritten for a good cause (like lack of resources and/or availability of an alternative). It can not (should not) be overwritten by mere administrative say-so. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 03:36:50 GMT From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) Message-Id: <1991Aug15.033650.8313@bradley.bradley.edu> References: <1991Aug14.212524.241@eff.org> Subject: Re: System Maintenance/Security requirements In <1991Aug14.212524.241@eff.org> kadie@eff.ORG (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > 1) Why should students not be permitted to give out their >passwords to others? Simple: Accountability. If some serious damage is linked to a given account, and the user is allowed to plead "I didn't do it, it was one of my friends who has my password", it would become an order of magnitude more difficult to pin down problems. > 3) Why do users concerned with having their private files read >by system administrators without their permission, not simply encrypt >the files they do not wish read? (Ok, this isn't a sysadmin question >:-) ) Laziness? Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 14:54:34 GMT From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Message-Id: <1991Aug12.145434.3380@eff.org> References: <9108110456.AA10689@relay1.UU.NET> Subject: Re: Public/Private institutions bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net writes: [...] >My question is this: Do these same rules and precedents apply to private >colleges as well? I attend a Methodist affiliated private college in >Birmingham, AL, and am beginning to become unsure of my rights as a student >in a private institution. While we are a very small college (1850 enrollmnt) >and I've not had any problems whatsoever in these areas, I would feel better >if I had the knowledge that I was "covered" under the same legal umbrella >that the public schools are under. [...] My understanding is that students at privacy colleges and universities have contractual rights but not constitutional rights. To learn about your contractual rights look for a document with a name (something like) "Code on Campus Affairs and Handbook of Policies and Regulations". If you are about to sign a registration agreement for Fall, look at what you are signing; it may refer to the handbook. These handbooks (usually) promise due process, some free expression, and some privacy. These are not idle promises; they are legally enforceable contractual obligations. Computer policies that contradict these contractual obligations are, in my opinion, morally and legally indefenseable. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 17:34:21 GMT From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Message-Id: <1991Aug12.173421.5645@eff.org> Subject: Re: Authority of Public Universities Recent notes have discussed the contractual and (for public universities) Constitutional constraints on computer policy. You might wonder if you, as a policy maker, can avoid the bother of understanding these constraints by sending your proposed policy to the University's lawyer for review. I think the answer is no; the University's lawyer cannot be trusted to give an authoritative answer. There are two reasons for this. 1) He or she is not familiar with the issues -- The lawyer is unlikely to understand computers and computer media (email, newsgroups, the Unix filesystem, etc). The case law on computers and academic freedom is very limited [aside: let's work to keep it that way]. 2) Most written computer policies are vague. A lawyer may assume the best. Sys admins, unfamiliar with their contractual obligations to students and staff, may practice the worst. Consider two examples. At the University of Illinois (my school), National Center for Supercomputer Application (NCSA) computer policy prohibits e-mail that "attempts to disadvantage NCSA." It also prohibits "inappropriate information disclosures." The University's lawyer gave this policy an OK. But what is an "attempt[] to disadvantage NCSA" and what is an "inappropriate information disclosure"? According to Michael Smith, the security officer of NCSA, the phrase "attempts to disadvantage NCSA" prohibits strong criticisms in e-mail of the NCSA and the University. A "inappropriate information disclosure" might include the violation of a nondisclosure agreement by someone who didn't sign such an agreement. This NCSA interpretation of its vague policy is inconsistent with University policy (and the First Amendment and academic freedom). It, thus, violates the NCSA's contractional (and constitutional and moral) obligations to students and staff. However, because the University lawyer didn't know (or inquire into) the NCSA's interpretation, the policy was given a legal OK. The second case is at Ohio State. OSU's Academic Computing Services (ACS) policy say that users must: [...] > o Respect the procedures established to manage the use of the > system. and that: >Those who cannot accept these standards of behavior may be denied access to >the relevant computer systems and networks. [...] I don't know of the OSU lawyer has reviewed this policy. I would not be surprised to learn that he or she had and had given it an OK. The policy mentions no due process protection. It does not say spell out the management procedures that must be respected by users. It does not say who determines that a user "cannot accept these standards of behavior". It does not say how long such a user will be "denied access". It does not say that users may ask for a hearing or appeal a decision. A University lawyer would probably assume that the University's general due process protections would be applied. While the ACS administration would probably assume that they could continue to practice their policy of 'if we decide that you break a rule (that we created, and you may not even know about), we can expel you from the computer forever. You will have no notice of your rights, no formal hearing, and no appeal.' If the University lawyer can't be trusted authoritatively review the legality of a policy, what can you do? I suggest: Everyone making policy should be familiar with the contractual (and constitutional and moral) constraints on University policy. Policy should be written and explicit. Don't rely on or vague unwritten policy. Faculty and students should participate in policy creation and application. Don't be reactive. Hard cases make for bad policies. (Both the NCSA and ACS policies were created immediately after the organizations punished users for behavior that these after-the-fact policies prohibited.) Have the policy reviewed by both the University lawyer and the University's Committee on Academic Freedom. You may also wish to posted to drafts of policy this newsgroup. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 20:06:28 GMT From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Message-Id: <1991Aug15.200628.27084@eff.org> Subject: "Censorship and Selection" If you are interested in how librarians select select books and magazines (and newsgroups?) and how they fight censorship attempts, I recommend the books: Censorship and Selection: Issues and Answers for Schools Before and After the Censor: a Resource Manual on Intellectual Freedom Intellectual Freedom Manual (full references at the end of this note) The books explain the policies of the American Library Association with respect to selection, diversity of material, labeling, access for minors, etc. Here are two highlights from the books: 1) All books include step-by-step instructions for the librarian on how to handle censorship attempts. These include sample response letters and tips on how to deal with the press. 2) The books say that no challendged item should be removed on the say-so on one person. [This quote is from "Selection and Censorship" and concerns challeges to library materials at grade and highschools] "No duly selected materials whose appropriateness is challenged shall be removed from the school except upon the recommendation of a review committe (as provided for below) with the concurrence of the Superintendend or, upon the Superintendent's recommendation, the concurrence of the Board of Eduation, or upon formal action of the Board of Education when a recommendation of a review committee is appealed to it." - Carl References ------------ Reichman, Henry, 1947- Censorship and selection : issues and answers for schools / by Henry Reichman. Chicago, Ill. : American Library Association ; Arlington, Va. : American Association of School Administrators, c1988. ix, 141 p. ; 23 cm. Bibliography: p. 129-132. ISBN 0838933505 (pbk. : alk. paper) : $$12.95 ISBN 0876521294 (American Association of School Administrators : pbk. : alk. paper) : $$12.95 1. Children's literature--Censorship. 2. School libraries-- Censorship--United States. 3. Censorship--United States. 4. Education--Curricula--Censorship. 5. School libraries--Book selection 6. Teaching, Freedom of--United States. I. Title. ocm18-068958 ---- Before and after the censor : a resource manual on intellectual freedom. :Michigan: : Michigan Association for Media in Education and Michigan Library Association, Intellectual Freedom Committees, 1987. 160 p. : forms ; 28 cm. Bibliography: p. 149-153. 1. Libraries--Censorship--Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Censorship--Handbooks, manuals, etc. 3. Freedom of information-- Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Michigan Association for Media in Education. Intellectual Freedom Committee. II. Michigan Library Association. Intellectual Freedom Committee. ocm17-358690 ---- Intellectual freedom manual / compiled by the Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association. 3rd ed. Chicago : The Association, c1988. p. cm. Bibliography: p. ISBN 0838933688 (alk. paper) 1. Libraries--Censorship--Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Freedom of information--Handbooks, manuals, etc. 3. Censorship--Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. American Library Association. Office for Intellectual Freedom. ocm18-683362 -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 17:48:37 GMT From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Message-Id: <1991Aug15.174837.23862@eff.org> Subject: CAF-News Abstracts These are abstracts of the Computers and Academic Freedom News (CAF-news). Referenced issues of CAF-news are available via anonymous ftp to eff.org in directory "academic/news". New issues of CAF-news are available via the newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to subscribe. CAF-news is also available via e-mail. For more info send email to listserv@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "longindex". - Carl --------- cafv01n01 [This is the first issue of the caf-news. It is made up of a selection of notes from the caf-talk mailing list. It covers notes posted from April 9th to April 14th. Expect more information about the caf-news after I catch up with old caf-talk notes. - Carl] cafv01n02 [This issue covers notes posted in the caf-talk mailing list from April 14th to April 21st. Next Wednesday, I'll publish selected notes up through April 28th. After that the caf-news will be published on Sunday, and will cover notes posted the preceeding week. Also, starting with the next issue, the formatting of the notes will be improved (there will not be so many header lines). This issue includes the policy statements from the American and Canadian Library Associations and the American Association of University Professors. Several notes suggest ways that these policy statements should be applied to computers. Netnews censorship and Purdue and Case Western is also discussed (with notes from both the censor and the censored). - Carl] cafv01n03 [This issue covers notes posted in the caf-talk mailing list from April 21th to April 28th. Starting this coming Sunday, caf-news will be published on Sunday and will cover notes posted the previous week. In this issue, system administrators from Case Western and Purdue tell why they censored outgoing newsgroup messages. The necessity of their censorship is discussed (with comments by some of the people who were censored.) I critique a new e-mail policy by a department of the University of Illinois. According to the security officer of department, the policy permits disk-space searches of people who attack the University or the department in email. As of today (May 1st), the policy stands; according to the department, the policy will not be rescinded until (unless) a new policy is created. Other notes discuss the nature of academic freedom and the use of University facilities. - Carl] cafv01n04 [This issue includes three proposed user policies. One of the policies says that "personal development" use is OK, but "personal use" is not. Several notes address the practicality and wisdom of such a distinction. Other notes discuss the policy of checking that user's newsgroup postings are proper according to the (sys admin's understanding) of a newsgroup's charter. Finally, more news about the NCSA e-mail policy: The old policy stands until (and unless) a new policy is created. - Carl p.s. I sent Issue #3, covering the week ending April 28, on Wednesday, May 1st. If you did not receive that issue, please send e-mail to kadie@eff.org] cafv01n05 [With the end of the school year at many places, traffic on the list has slowed. Readership, however, is now up to 250 in at least six countries. This issue includes information on how to get back issues of caf-news from the archives and information on how to get copies of the computer policies of many schools. It also has a report of attempted expression suppression (under the guise of political correctness?). The main topic in this issue is a discussion of exactly how the principles of academic freedom should be applied to computers and networks (with excerpted comments from Sanjay Kapur, Edward Vielmetti, George Rickerson, Aydin Edguer, and Rich Kulawiec. - Carl] cafv01n06 [Three topics are discussed in this issue: What is the relation between newsgroup systems and traditional libraries? How should privacy rights be applied to diskspace and email? How do general University policies evolve? The last question is addressed with a survey University of Illinois policy from 1904 to present. It is interesting to see both the trend and how external forces such as Alcohol Prohibition and the Red Scares effected policy. - Carl] cafv01n07 [This issue considers the circumstances under which a (computer) postmaster should read the body of misaddressed e-mail. In also includes a brief history of Academic Freedom in the US and comments whether system admins should stand up for user rights. Sally Webster solicits "ethics war stories". A computer-user right is asserted: the right to participate in policy formulation and application. Finally, Boston University's computer policy is criticized as one sided. - Carl] cafv01n08 [SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of April This is a compilation of the best notes from April. It includes the original announcement for the CAF archive and copies of general policy statements from the American Library Association, the Canadian Library Association, and the American Association of University Professors. It also includes reports of a victory for freedom of expression at Denver University, newsgroup censorship at Purdue and Case Western, and one-sided e-mail policy at the University of Illinois. - Carl] cafv01n09 [This issue covers more topics than usual. The most important information is a description of Berkeley's Open Computing Facility (OCF), an organization that *democratically* manages computer resources for thousands of users. The OCF constitution and bylaws are included. Other topics discussed are arbitrary searches (re Boston University), the need for clear and explicit policy (re U. of Illinois/NCSA), what telephone company employees do when they overhear a phone call, how email problems can be fixed without reading the body of notes, and what do to about (perceived) disk-quota abuse. The final note announces new distribution methods for the lists and tells how to switch. - Carl p.s. I hope to switch caf-news to the official digest format soon. ] cafv01n10 [SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of May This is a compilation of the best notes from May. It includes several notes detailing how academic freedom might be applied to computers. Issues considered include privacy, participation, quota enforcement, freedom to read, and personal use. Several notes tell how academic freedom is (or is not) being applied at particular universities including the University of Illinois and Boston University. From Berkeley comes a description of Berkeley's Open Computing Facility (OCF), an organization that *democratically* manages computer resources for thousands of users. Also, the compilation includes a case study that tells how a general student policy has evolved since 1904. After reading the case study you will be able to say "hey, this computer policy looks like something from the 1930's." Finally, there is a note that tells how to get back issues from the CAF archive. - Carl] cafv01n11 [This compilation includes a call for student and faculty participation in policy formation and application. The call is endorsed by a sys admin at Berkeley's Open Computing Facility, a place where such participation is the standard operating procedure. Also, the question "Should users be automatically suspended from the computer if they are suspected of an infraction?" is discussed. There is a critique of the (soon to be revised?) Ohio State CIS email policy. Due process is discussed with examples of punishment without due process from UMCP and Ohio State. Pragmatic benefits of due process are asserted. Finally, the question "Does the availability of GIF images of nude people constitute sexual harassment?" is discussed. - Carl] cafv01n12 [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] cafv01n13 [This week's selection is mostly about user-sys admin relations. In the first note, a sys admin describes the pressures of his job. In the next series of notes, users describe bad experiences at the University of Kentucky, at the University of Maryland, in industry, and at the University of Illinois. The topic is concluded with notes from sys admins and users that tell the secrets of great user-sys admin relations (good communication and moderation-in-action.) Next, a note argues against charging users with "theft of service" because the charge is too broad. The last note tell how you might be able to switch from e-mail delivery of CAF-news to newsgroup delivery. I will be out of town the next two weekends, so distribution of issues #14 and #15 may be delayed. - Carl] cafv01n14 I'm back from a great vacation. This is the CAF-news for the week ending June 30, 1991. The first three notes discuss student exploration; if a student breaks the system, does it matter if he or she did it accidently or maliciously? The last note discusses intellectual property agreements in which the University may claim some ownership in material you developed at the University. - Carl] cafv01n15 [SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of June This issues starts with reports of user abuse at Ohio State and in industry and a report of sys admin abuse at the University of Kentucky. The next note shows what can happen when users are denied due process; they may take matters into their own hands causing much more serious problems. A note by William Murray attributes most user/sys admin conflict to honest differences in how each perceive computer systems. Two notes discuss graphics files of naked people. The notes argue that University's can not prohibit such files without violating the rights of their student. Library policy with regard to pictures of naked people and the issue of sexual harassment are considered. The final six notes tell how to make things run smoothly. Users and sys admins should give each other the benefit of the doubt; "ALL problems of abuse etc. come about due to lack of communications between the Systems staff and the users." An experienced sys admin reports that it is almost never necessary to suspend users. Another reports that user participation in policy making really works. Both of these observations are supported by the Joint Statement on the Rights and Freedoms of Students. - Carl] cafv01n16 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. cafv01n17 [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] cafv01n18 [The first four notes address the question "Under what conditions should a user's computer files be searched?" Helen C. O'Boyle reports that when faculty and students at Virginia Commonwealth University asked that "emergency searches" be reported to the user with 24 hours, the computer staff refused. Other notes list the (general) search policies of the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, the U.S. Bill of Rights, the Code of the University of Illinois, and a proposed law on computer searches. The final four notes discuss cases. There is a report that at Wayne State University the official "Student Due Process Policy" was completely ignored. A student at Ohio State, who was once expelled from ACS/IRCC computers, offers a reminder that we are only getting Steven Brack's side of the story. In the next note, I critique as new Ohio State ACS computer policy because it seems to permit computer expulsions without due process. In the final note, a student tells how he quit Hamline University after he was expelled from the computer with notice, explanation, or recourse. - Carl] cafv01n19 [I am happy to report that the CAF project is growing. Helen C. O'Boyle, William W. Arnold, and I will be working together to manage CAF-news and CAF-talk. We will take turns (month by month) editing CAF-news. The first five notes in this collection discuss searches of computer files. Issues covered include probable cause, enforcement of probable cause requirements, the reasonableness of expecting privacy, and system defaults that can be set to make problems with user-user snooping much less likely. In the news, a report of student a the University of Georgia who was suspend from the University after distributing an encrypted password file. It appears that the student received due process. The next notes outline the contractual and constitutional constraints on sys admin (and University) authority. They explains that universities are under a contractual obligation to treat students fairly. Every administrator and student should read these notes. The final notes discuss an initiative to develop a sample computer policy that would respect academic freedom. The notes include a request (by me) that we wait until more students return to campus next month to pursue this project. Other notes propose outlines of a sample policy. - Carl] cafv01n20 [SPECIAL ISSUE: The Best of July The first notes discuss cases. Ohio State University and Steven Brack are back in the news. Recall that Mr. Brack was permanently expelled (without the chance for a formal hearing or appeal) from OSU's Academic Computer Services (ACS) computers. Now a Judicial Committee hearing will decide if Mr. Brack be should punished some more (apparently for the same alleged offenses). Mr. Brack is charged with, among other things, obscenity (i.e. typing "fuck you" in newsgroup note.) The third note about the Ohio State case is a reminder that only Mr. Brack's side of this case has been presented in this forum. In addition to the Ohio State case, there is a report of student of the University of Georgia being suspended for knowingly aiding crackers by supplying them with an encrypted password file. (The student seems to have received due processes.) There are also reports of due-process procedures being ignored at Virginia Commonwealth University and at Wayne State University. The next three notes are about searches of computer files. The first quotes the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students on (noncomputer) searches. The next describes proposed federal rules on computer searches by the police. The third argues that a probable cause rule is enforceable. There are three notes about policy. In the first, I critique Ohio State ACS computer policy because it seems to allow expulsion from their computers without the opportunity for a formal hearing or an appeal. The next note outlines the topics that a model policy should cover. The last lists a proposed U.S. constitutional amendment. It would guarantee Constitutional protection (like freedom of expression) of computer users. The last two notes outline the contractual and constitutional constraints on sys admin (and University) authority. They explain that universities are under a contractual obligation to treat students fairly. Every administrator and student should read these notes. - Carl] -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 19:35:52 GMT From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Message-Id: <1991Aug15.193552.26018@eff.org> References: <1991Aug15.174837.23862@eff.org> Subject: Re: CAF-News Abstracts I've corrected several factual errors in "eff.org:academic/abstracts". I apologize for the mistakes. Here is a diff of the old version compared to the new version. The old is marked with ">". The new is marked with "<". - Carl ------------------------ 22c22 < statements should be applied to computers. Netnews censorship at --- > statements should be applied to computers. Netnews censorship and 24c24 < censor and the censored of Purdue). --- > censor and the censored). 32,35c32,35 < In this issue, a system administrator from Purdue tell why he censored < outgoing newsgroup messages. The necessity of the censorship at Case < Western and Purdue censorship is discussed (with comments by people < close to the incidents.) --- > In this issue, system administrators from Case Western and Purdue tell > why they censored outgoing newsgroup messages. The necessity of their > censorship is discussed (with comments by some of the people who were > censored.) 207,212c207,212 < industry and a report from the University of Kentucky on the pressures < faced by sys admins (caused in part by users). The next note shows < what can happen when users are denied due process; they may take < matters into their own hands causing much more serious problems. A < note by William Murray attributes most user/sys admin conflict to < honest differences in how each perceive computer systems. --- > industry and a report of sys admin abuse at the University of > Kentucky. The next note shows what can happen when users are denied > due process; they may take matters into their own hands causing much > more serious problems. A note by William Murray attributes most > user/sys admin conflict to honest differences in how each perceive > computer systems. 228d227 < 229a229,237 > 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. > -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me.