Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) September 15, 1991 Vol. 1, No. 27 [Week of September 9, 1991 to September 15, 1991 The first eight notes deal with applying library policy to a Netnews facility. The first note argues that while academic libraries can concentrate on educational material, they should interpret the word "educational" very broadly. The next note reports that Usenet/Netnews is historically educational . The third note defines and distinguish "censorship" and "selection". The fourth, responding to a note in CAF-News 1.26, asserts that librarians who keep Playboy under lock and key really are doing it protect the magazine, not to avoid controversy.. The fifth note suggests that computer sites that try to ban "offensive" newsgroups, may be held responsible when someone is offended by a note that gets through in an "inoffensive" newsgroup. A while back I posted a note to a library-related mailing list. The note described Netnews and gave examples of (what I consider) censorship. The examples included Stanford's removal of rec.humor.funny (it was later returned) and Wes Morgan's statement that his site might not subscribe alt.sex to avoid controversy. In the sixth note, Wes Morgan objects to the idea that avoiding material to avoid controversy is censorship. The seventh note is a reposting of my invitation to librarians. The eighth note tries to define "library" to see how well term can cover a Netnews service. The note lists the legal definition of "library" for the few states that have such a definition. Indiana's definition seems the best. The next to notes are about the CAF archive and CAF-News. The first note announces a reorganized archive of academic computer policies. The second note explains the editorial policy of CAF-News. The last two notes are about email privacy. The first note explains the the law's ambiguous protection. The second, opins on the limited circumstances in which a sys admin could legally and ethically look at a user's email. - Carl] In this issue: 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc 45 Academic Privacy Question Robert F Solon 12 History of Usenet and Implications for Academic Freedom Dan Lester 59 Academic Privacy Question Jamie Saker 63 - Dan Lester 55 Restricting access to new<>ups (was: Re: Academic Privacy Wes Morgan 50 Selection Policy for Computer Conferences? Carl M. Kadie 117 - Carl M. Kadie 75 What is a library? Carl M. Kadie 75 Computer policies collections Carl M. Kadie 103 CAF-News Editorial Policy Sanjay Kapur 37 censorship SKAPUR@ccmail 44 > Computers and Academic Freedom News 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 pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email. For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index". 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. 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. From: 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu Date: 9 Sep 91 08:50:26 CDT Message-ID: <1991Sep9.085026.33361@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> References: <1991Sep7.092741.33334@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <9109091217.AA10627@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> Subject: Academic Privacy Question In article <9109091217.AA10627@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>, nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes: > I'm sorry, but you'll have to be more specific. What exactly is a > "Borkism"? Why would such a policy lead to censorship per se? > Where did I advocate censorship in the common sense, which is review > of material for the purposes of determining some level of > correctness? I'm simply saying that sysadins have a right to > determine on a prior basis (not not review of material after it has > been produced) what newsgroups will be carried at their sites. This > is not censorship. This is economic/technical/whatever necessity. > Simply attempting to reduce an argument to a misnomer associated > with someone whom most in the academic community do not like, simply > does not refute the argument itself. Bork suitably excoriated in previous post. I can't legitimately object to selective availability of newsgroups on the grounds of limited resources, although I think this is often a bogus issue. Disks are now about $3K/gigabyte, and most installations could therefore buy between 10 and 15 Gb/year by firing an administrative drone whose only role is to shuffle papers and get in the users' hair. But there are of course other issues--the VAX I'm posting this from is maxed out on HSC ports, and a new HSC controller is ~$50K. If $50K were to suddenly materialize, I'd prefer our friendly Comp. Center folks buy one of the new screamer workstations rather than beef up the old VAX.... So if a librarian has to choose between subscribing to _Nature_ or _Hustler_, or if a sys. admin. has to choose between putting up comp.sys.unix or alt.sex.bestiality, I won't complain too much if they make what seems like the obvious choice. But I think it's specious to say that one pole of the two sets of alternatives above is 'educational' and the other isn't. Even in a university setting, the 'wrong' pole would provide more novel information to more people. Educational 'Borkishness' (Bloomism?) is the belief that learning is the absorption of a narrow, prescribed canon. I don't think you really believe this, but it's a viewpoint that just oozes out between all the cracks at even self-styled 'liberal' and/or 'progressive' instutions. It can sneak up on you if you're not careful. Christopher Gunn Molecular Graphics and Modeling Lab SPAN--KUPHSX::GUNN Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Malott Hall 913-864-4428 or -4495 University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045 From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) Date: 9 Sep 91 20:11:46 GMT Message-ID: <9109092011.AA00258@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> Subject: History of Usenet and Implications for Academic Freedom We just received "What is Usenet" by Gene Spafford. It specifically states that Usenet originally was a feed between two universities. With that in mind, I withdraw my suggestion that Usenet's primary purpose is not educational. Its original purpose was to exchange ideas and information (not a quote, please see news.admin.) Although I could not find a formal statement-of-purpose, it appears as if education is a primary one. Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil DSAC-BCC -- "We Code, You explode!" From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester) Date: 9 Sep 91 19:10:21 GMT Message-ID: <199109091819.AA26087@eff.org> References: Subject: Academic Privacy Question On Mon, 9 Sep 91 13:41:11 EDT Robert F Solon said: >I'm using censorship is the sense of "review", i.e. examining >material after is is produced. There are other definitions of Librarians would generally use "censorship" to mean review or elimination from a collection after it was already purchased and in the collection. For example, a parent complaining that a particular book was dirty and should be removed so his kid can't read such "nasty stuff" as Judy Blume novels for kids. Librarians usually use the term "selection" for choosing which of the innumerable books they should buy with their limited dollars. There is no question that relating the materials to the community is a factor here. In some communities Judy Blume is passe and would never be an issue. In others it is. One of the classic library censorship cases came up in the sixties when a college library director went to the wall (and ended up losing his job) over Evergreen Review, which was then considered "dirty" by many. Many still would. He contended that it was basic to the small Christian college where he worked in the middle of Bible-belt north Texas. They had all of three hundred journals to cover the whole student body and curriculum. I think his mistake was fighting that ER was one of the most important 300 journals for his school. I consider that stupid. I would have fought for it in a larger college or in a university, even to the point of losing my job. But to put it in such a high priority in such a place I consider just plain stupid. In a 15,000 student university in the same town would be an appropriate battle. >up. This implies judgement that is not content-based except on a >very general level. If a sysadmin were to stop this article from And this is what I called "selection", looking at past content in general and determining whether it is "good enough" or "appropriate enough" for my students and faculty. >that my site does not receive alt.sex is not. I think the >librarians are using censorship is a much more vague way; my >impression is that anything that tend to stifle the freedom to >inquire would be considered censorship. Some do use it that way, but to me that is abroader general issue of intellectual freedom, of which censorship is just a part. This is why the Amer Library Assn has an "Office of Intellectual Freedom" that is heavily involved in such issues, and not just a "Censorship Office." And, any of you interested in such things should read their "Intellectual Freedom Newsletter" in your library, or subscribe yourself. It covers ALL kinds of issues....not just strictly library related.....censoring high school plays.....school papers.....laws passed locally to prevent the sale of Playboy in Circle K and 7/11 stores, and so on. dan ************************************************************************ * Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu * Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu * Boise State University * Boise, Idaho 83725 You can be sure these ideas are my * 208-385-1234 own; no one else would have them. ************************************************************************ From: jsaker@unomaha.edu (Jamie Saker) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 01:51:45 GMT Message-ID: References: <1631971F0E812E9F@ccmail.sunysb.edu> <9109091741.AA23739@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> Subject: Academic Privacy Question nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes: >I'm using censorship is the sense of "review", i.e. examining >material after is is produced. There are other definitions of >censorship. The term "prior restraint" generally refers to the >same thing (I think.) Actually, prior restraint can mean censorship (as in the case of the Pentagon Papers -- the newspaper in question was restrained for something like 6 days until the U.S. Supreme Court could review the case), and it can also include self-imposed controls, as in the case of many newspapers during WWI (where the editors refused to print anything that may be of use to the enemy). Not exactly "censorship" in the true meaning of the word. >very general level. If a sysadmin were to stop this article from >being passed on, for example, that would be censorship. The fact >that my site does not receive alt.sex is not. I think the >librarians are using censorship is a much more vague way; my >impression is that anything that tend to stifle the freedom to >inquire would be considered censorship. What I've often thought was an interesting point in this issue is the admission of liability upon acting as censor for any printed materials. In the case of USENET, if a University adopts a policy of censoring USENET news, it accepts liability for any information that makes it past the censor and "offends" a particular audience. Unfortunately, too many information providors (esp. USENET news providors) adopt a policy of censoring information (either through selectively not carrying/providing certain newsgroups, or controlling the content of the groups) without carefully examining this legal issue. For example, if the University of X imposes newsfeed censorship by not carrying certain groups, say alt.sex.*, alt.drugs.*, rec.arts.erotica, and a few other select groups determined to be of a character not acceptable to the administration, they are accepting the role as the guarantor of the information to their consumer. Now, if an article containing offensive material slips by (such as someone accidentely crossposting material from alt.sex.bondage to comp.emacs, and a consumer takes offense at the material and sues the information provider (University of X), since they acted as the guarantor of the information, they most likely have accepted responsibility and therefore are liable. Overall, the most rational choice is to either carry the full service, provide disclaimers (and require acceptance of the disclaimer prior to the provision of service) or don't carry the service at all. >Bob Solon, rsolon@dsac.dla.mil >DSAC-BCC -- "We Code, You Explode!!" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jamie Saker jsaker@odin.unomaha.edu . . #include . . "No red beads until . . The Penny Network Foundation further notice. Failure . . P.O. Box 138 to comply will result in . . Blair, NE 68008-0138 immediate termination." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From: ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester) Date: 9 Sep 91 03:31:08 GMT Message-ID: <199109090239.AA04619@eff.org> References: Subject: Restricting access to newsgroups (was: Re: Academic Privacy On Sun, 8 Sep 1991 11:58 EDT Sanjay Kapur said: >>From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) >>(Most) libraries restrict access to Playboy, not because it contains >>pictures of nude women, but because experience has shown that it is >>likely to get stolen. > >Do you really believe that? He should. It's true. Another library I worked in had Playboy on color microfilm, at the request of Home Economics (yes, really...because of the fashion stuff, for both historical and current interest). We found that the color film was getting mutilated by people clipping out the nude frames. Presumably some dorms or frats were having some GREAT slide shows at their parties. >My opinion of the reason cited by you for restricting access to Playboy is: >Hogwash. Librarians, like all other human beings lie when asked difficult >questions. That does not mean you have to believe their lies. So may some systems analysts or others. But the above is NOT a lie, nor is the following. >The replacement cost of Playboy is low comapared to some scientific journals, >copies of which get stolen on a regular basis. These journals are NOT >kept behind the counter. Why can't the library have get two subscriptions to >Playboy? one to keep behind the counter and one to keep on the shelf if For the same reason the library can't get two subscriptions to any ohter journals. And that is why we get sports illustrated and others on microfilm. Because the originals are beat to hell before three months are past, when it is time to bind them. And the bound ones get mutilated too. And, most librarians hate microfilm even more than the users do, as they have to hassle with the equipment day and nite. >interest in this magazine is high enough for it get stolen. Libraries often >get more than one copy of an item in which interest is high. Most libraries duplicate a few books (I am speaking of university libraries, not public ones), but almost NO journals. There are too many other journals that people want and we can't afford the first subscription. In the library cited below (where I work) we put ANY material on reserve that has disappeared (or been mutilated seriously) more than twice. In other words, a replacement goes back to the stacks. The second replacement goes on permanent reserve. This has included some wonderful art books (and not all "dirty" stuff...assume some were cut to shreds to decorate rooms or apartments), the Anarchist's Cookbook, and some heavily assigned history and business books. And some education and PE books too. And, yes, some that have pictures of naked people in them. dan ************************************************************************ * Dan Lester Bitnet: alileste@idbsu * Associate University Librarian Internet: alileste@idbsu.idbsu.edu * Boise State University * Boise, Idaho 83725 You can be sure these ideas are my * 208-385-1234 own; no one else would have them. From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Date: 10 Sep 91 21:25:23 GMT Message-ID: <1991Sep10.212523.3734@ms.uky.edu> References: <9109061947.AA00162@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> <1991Sep6.212005.20119@eff.org> Subject: Selection Policy for Computer Conferences? In article <1991Sep6.212005.20119@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > >I concede that public universities *can* legally create a limited >public forum (Netnews) that is restricted to a set of topics (only >some newsgroups are carried). > Thank you. This is the summation of the entire "carry alt.sex?" discussion in which Carl and I were primary debators. >But what if a university first selects rec.humor.funny and later bans >(or deselects) it because some people find some of the jokes >offensive? I would call that censorship. I would call it a different topic! The entire "limited public forum" discussion was limited to INITIAL NEWSGROUP OFFERINGS. However, Carl saw fit to use our discussion to classify me as a example of potential censorship in his posting to PACS-L. He did not mention to PACS-L that he acknowledges the right of a system administrator to select newsgroups for a particular site. Why not? Could it be that Carl says whatever his target audience wishes to hear? In his posting to PACS-L, Carl writes: >If you are interested how library policy should apply to new media >(and especially if you might be able to offer advice) please join the >Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) mailing list or newsgroup. > >These are the formative years for computer media policy. It >is very important that we formulate a good policy. It's also important that those individuals who are supposedly leading or moderating the discussion (CAF-news is moderated by Carl), take care to ensure that the FULL discussion is made available. It is almost im- possible to "formulate a good policy" if one can't see both sides of the discussion. -- 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 ------------------------------ End of caf-talk Digest ****************************** From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 17:58:08 GMT Message-ID: <1991Sep11.175808.23857@eff.org> References: <9109061947.AA00162@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> <1991Sep6.212005.20119@eff.org> <1991Sep10.212523.3734@ms.uky.edu> Subject: Selection Policy for Computer Conferences? Enclosed is the article I sent to PACS-L. My intention was to get some librarians to join our discussion. (This seems to have worked.) In the note, I refer to newsgroup selection based on fear of controversy as "censorship". I didn't mean to indicate that I thought such a selection criteria was illegal. - Carl ======================================== ~From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) ~Subject: Wanted selection policy for NetNews We need advice from librarians to stop censorship of a new computer medium. Some background information: Netnews (aka Usenet, aka newsgroups) is a computer medium for group discussions over networks. It's content is about the same as that of mailing lists. (In fact some Netnews newsgroups are available via mailing lists.) The difference between a newsgroup and a mailing list is distribution. Mailing lists are sent to individuals; newsgroups are sent to computer sites. Mailing lists thus have the advantage of being able to reach anyone with an email account. Netnews requires special software on every participant's computer. This software is generally available on Unix machines, but is not generally available on, for example, IBM mainframes. The main advantage of Netnews is cost. Because everyone on a given computer shares the same copy of a Netnews article storage and transmission costs are very low. This means that sites can afford to subscribe to many newsgroups. Casual participates can, thus, easily follow or browse many topics. The Problem: Selection. If a computer site cannot afford to subscribe to all the Netnews newsgroups (there are thousands of newsgroups and each requires some amount of disk space), how should it select which newsgroups to get? Last week a computer administer at the University of Kentucky stated that his machine would be avoiding a popular newsgroups dealing with sex because he feared it was too controversial. In Canada, the University of Waterloo bans a humor newsgroup because some of the joke sometimes offend some people. (The jokes from the newsgroup are published once a year in book form. Ironically, the University of Waterloo's library collects the books.). I think a computer with Netnews *is* (in part) a library and should follow proper library selection (and deselection) policy. (Stanford fought a ban of the humor newsgroup by making this their official policy.) As a computer scientist, however, I don't have a good understanding of the details of selection. If you are interested how library policy should apply to new media (and especially if you might be able to offer advice) please join the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) mailing list or newsgroup. These are the formative years for computer media policy. It is very important that we formulate a good policy. I've enclosing the flyer for CAF. If you know anyone who might be interested in these issues, please forward this note to him or her. - Carl, co-moderator of Computers and Academic Freedom ------------ Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing List Purpose: To discuss questions such as: How should general principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and networks be defended? Mitch Kapor has given the discussion a home on the eff.org machine. As of July, 1991, the list has 283 members in at least five countries. Thousands more read the list via newsgroups. There are three versions of the mailing list. comp-academic-freedom-talk - you'll received dozens of e-mail notes every day. comp-academic-freedom-batch - about once a day, you'll receive a compilation of the day's notes. comp-academic-freedom-news - about once a week you'll receive a compilation of the best notes of the week. (I play the editor for this one). To join a version of the list, send mail to listserv@eff.org. Include the line "add ". (Other commands are "delete " and "help"). In any case, after you join the list you can send e-mail to the list by addressing it to caf-talk@eff.org. Alternatively, if you may be able to read the mailing lists as newsgroups. Look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news. The best notes from each month are available via anonymous ftp from eff.org as files "pub/academic/news/July", etc. Also, see file "pub/academic/README". -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 18:56:27 GMT Message-ID: <1991Sep12.185627.26936@eff.org> Subject: What is a library? I advocate treating newsgroup selection like selection at a library. But is Netnews only like a library, or is it a library? The answer to this question is more than academic. Some states such as Michigan exempt libraries from their antipandering laws. So what is a library? Here is my favorite definition: (From Indiana state law) "'Library' means a collection of a variety of books or other printed matter, audiovisual materials or other items in which knowledge is recorded; kept in a centralized place; for which a person who as knowledge of the materials, their arrangement, their use and of library skills is responsible; and which are for the use of individuals or groups in meeting their recreational, informational, educational, research or cultural needs." Here are some others: The best definition in the OED II is: "a public institution or establishment, charged with the care of a collection of books, and the duty of rendering the books accessible to those who require to use them." I called the American Library Association, but the folks I talked to did know of an official definition. They did, however, suggest looking in the book _American Library Laws_ (5th edition) for legal definitions. From the book I learned that most states do not define the term. Here are definitions from the states that do: California: "'School library' means an organized collection of printed and audiovisual materials which (a) is administered as a unit, (b) is located in a designed place, and (c) makes printed, audiovisual, and other materials as well as necessary equipment and services of a staff accessible to elementary and secondary school students and teachers." "'Academic library' means a library established and maintained by a college or university to meet the needs of its students and faculty, and others by agreement." Maine: "'Media center' means any library utilizing print as well as extensive nonprint resources and materials." Pennsylvania: "'Local Library.' Any free, public, nonsectrian library, whether established and maintained by a municipality or by a private association, corporation or group, which serves the informational, educational and recreational needs of all the residents of the area for which its governing body is responsible, by providing free access (including free lending and reference services) to an organized and currently useful collection of printed items and other materials and to the services of staff trained to recognized and provide for these needs." South Dakota: "'Public library materials,' the various forms in which knowledge, information, and humanity's cultural heritage are recorded that a public library might acquire, organized and make available to its clientele;" Washington State: "'Resources' are library materials which include but are not limited to print, nonprint (e.g., audiovisual, realia, etc.), and microform formats; network resources such as software, hardware, and equipment; electronic and magnetic records; data bases; communication technology; facilities; and human expertise." [According to the OED II, "realia" are " Objects which may be used as teaching aids but were not made for the purpose."] -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1991 01:51:28 GMT Message-ID: <1991Sep10.015128.3970@eff.org> Subject: Computer policies collections The CAF archive contains two collections of academic computer policies. These are available via anonymous ftp to directories pub/academic/widener and pub/academic/policies. Within a day or so, they are also be available via email. For more information send email to "archive-server@eff.org". Include the line "help". The widener directory is a mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*. The policies directory is a collection of other policies. I'm enclosing the README file for the policies directory. - Carl ================= README ----------------- It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. Also see directory "widener". ================= acs.ohio-state.edu ----------------- Policy on Abuse of Computers and Networks for The Office of Academic Computing at The Ohio State University. (This policy was critiqued and discussed in CAF-talk.) ================= cc.columbia.edu ----------------- The old policy for Columbia University's Center for Computing Activities. They are working on a new policy. (This policy was critiqued and discussed in CAF-talk.) ================= cis.ohio-state.edu ----------------- This is the (soon to be revised?) appropriate use, mail (and netnews), disk, and printer policy for the computers labs of OSU's Computer and Information Science Department. (This policy was critiqued and discussed in CAF-talk.) ================= cmich.edu ----------------- Excerpts from "Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Computing Services At Central Michigan University (And Were Afraid To Ask)", Computer Services Document No. CSVD0092. It is given to new users. (The policy was critiqued and discussed in CAF-talk.) ================= pitt.edu ----------------- The University of Pittsburgh Guidelines for Ethical Use from "User's Guide to Academic Computing" and Computer Access and Use policy. ================= staff.cc.purdue.edu ----------------- Staff policy for Purdue University's Computing Center ================= watmath.waterloo.edu ----------------- Policy of the University of Waterloo's Mathematics Faculty Computing Facility ================= ================= Last update Mon Sep 9 21:40:58 EDT 1991 -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 22:03:54 GMT Message-ID: <1991Sep11.220354.29371@eff.org> Subject: CAF-News Editorial Policy This note tries to answer the questions that I am asked from time to time. I am asked: How are articles selected for CAF-news? Is CAF-news biased? (yes!) What are you doing to minimize the problems caused by the lag time between CAF-talk and CAF-news? Why are you usually the largest contributor to CAF-news? ------ Here is kind of how I select articles for CAF-news: (in alphabetical order) Important - If someone wants to understand Computers and Academic Freedom, he or she should not be required to read all the notes of caf-talk. Reading CAF-news (starting with the monthlies) should suffice. We are selecting for posterity. Interesting - Reports of real cases add drama and remind everyone that computer policy effects people. Irredundant -- Often a later article will do a good job at summarize an earlier article. In such cases, I don't selected the earlier article. On topic - A while back, there was a big discussion about the philosophy of the Constitution. It was interesting, but had little to do with computers and academic freedom. I didn't include any notes on this topic. Short - I don't have any problem with long notes, but I want only between 6 and 12 notes per week. Cutting down to so few notes is very difficult, but it is the most important function of caf-news. Representative - The reader should have confidence that major aspects of the issues have been brought out. ----- This is my philosophy on bias in editing I do not believe that an editor (or writer) can be unbiased. Editing CAF-news involves selecting the "best" set of notes of the week. The choice of the best notes is inherently subjective; it depends on my bias. Although CAF-news is biased by its editor, I have taken steps to insure fairness. 1. The flyer from CAF discloses the nature of CAF-news "comp-academic-freedom-news - about once a week you'll receive a compilation of the best notes of the week. (I play the editor for this one)" 2. CAF-talk is an open forum 3. I make no comments in the body of notes (ala Telecom-digest) 4. I post my abstract of CAF-news in CAF-talk 5. I claim no monopoly on selection notes from CAF-talk. Anyone can create a competing digest. Although, I won't distribute the CAF-news mailing list, I will carry advertisements for a competing digest in CAF-news. Also the listserv software is available via anonymous FTP. ----- Notes on slow CAF-newses (sp?) Ideally, CAF-news would come out on Sunday or Monday, just a day or two after the close of the week. This ideal is seldom met. Issue 1.23 was almost a week "late". Sometimes important notes get posted to CAF-talk between the CAF-news deadline and its publication. When people notice that CAF-news is doesn't include these notes, they fear that the editor is excluding good notes. I think this fear can be put to rest by 1) posting the CAF-newses date along with its abstract in CAF-talk 2) Adding something like "This discussion is continuing in CAF-talk, expect important notes on this topic in the next issue" to the abstract. -------- Possible reasons why I'm often the largest contributor to CAF-news (all of which may be true to some degree): I'm the largest contributor CAF-talk Many of my posts are informative posts from books I start many of the new discussions Some of my posts are anonymous posts from others My posts really are among the best I just think my posts are among the best. --- Carl M. Kadie -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) Date: 11 Sep 91 11:37:00 GMT Message-ID: <92EC79568E81427D@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Subject: censorship >From: ruby ramji u >hello, >i'm new to this list and looking for some information. Welcome >i'm interested in the issue of censorsip on the computer networks >in the university systems. >are there any particular jurisdictions? There are several legal jursidictions, the federal jurisdiction derived from the ECPA and other laws. State jurisdictions from various state laws and University jursidictions also from vaarious state laws and University policies, rules and regulations. >do students have the right to privacy? Some people say they do, some people say they do not. The right is not well estabilished (yet). At this point in time, it is not "safe" for a student to assume such a right by default. >if anyone has any information on this i would love to hear it. >any help will be appreciated. > Look in the directory academic in the eff.org archives which are accessiblie by anonymous ftp to eff.org. >ruby >rramji4@mach1.wlu.ca > Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046 From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) Subject: Re: censorship Message-ID: <94B10ABABE81427D@ccmail.sunysb.edu> From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu Date: 11 Sep 91 11:50:00 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org > >Following this idea I'd like to know what protections one has from >the eavesdropping of e-mail. > >Its not a tough job to grab someone's packets off the net and read them. >But having something available does not make it ethical or legal. >Have there been any test cases involving electronic privacy? >I bet there have! >Can someone shed some light on this? > >Ant Man! >Dan LaSota >ffdkl@acad3.alaska.edu This question was (hotly) debated and argued by me over the past two weeks in this list. The upshot of the discussion was (in my opinion), it is legal and ethical for someone to read someones mail only under three limited circumstances and then only by the persons directly involved in maintaining the system/network: 1) When reading such mail is required in solving a real problem on the system. 2) When reading such mail is required to maintain the quality of service. 3) When reading such mail is required to protect the propery of the owner of the mail service provider. It is in general illegal for such a person to disclose such information to anyone else, except as provided for in the ECPA. Browsing for the sake of curiosity or for the sake of browsing is illegal and unethical. A court order is generally the only other way someone should be able to access your files. There was general agreement on 1) but not everyone agreed on 2) and 3) although they are permitted by the ECPA. You can read the relevant portions of the ECPA by obtaining it from the eff.org archives in the academic directory by anonymous ftp. Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046