Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) October 20, 1991 Vol. 1, No. 33 [Week ending October 20, 1991 I'm using a new format this week for the abstract. The format is based on a design by Tad Guy. THE WORDS AFTER THE NUMBERS are a short paraphrase of the article, not necessarily my opinion. Notes 1-10 are related to the brouhaha in the State of Washington. Notes 1-2 are about what happened. 1. A state auditor's criticism of game playing and pictures of naked people on computers at Central Washington University (CWU) lead to a demotion at CWU, newspaper criticism of the University of Washington (UW), and newsgroup removal at Western Washington University (WWU). <199110180040.AA04264@eff.org> 2. (Student at WWU:) Alt.sex was removed on the order of one person, the Vice Provost for "information and communication". <1991Oct17.181138.9478@henson.cc.wwu.edu> Notes 3-4 express disapproval of the newsgroup censorship. 3. The removal of alt.sex sets a precedent that could lead to the removal of other controversial newsgroups (e.g. talk.abortion). The removal is a blow against the freedom of intellectual discourse. <17OCT199119542932@misvax.mis.arizona.edu> 4. If you accept the principle that computer sites should select newsgroups the way that (traditional) libraries select magazine subscriptions, then the removal and the procedure that led to the removal violate the Library Bill of Rights. <1991Oct17.021516.851@eff.org> Notes 5-6 are about the legality of newsgroup bans. 5. Public school authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply because of displeasure with the content. <1991Oct19.151904.20184@eff.org> 6. Courts are reluctant to endorse prior restraints, but do allow removal of libelous material. <1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org> Notes 7-8 Tell how other schools have fought efforts to suppress newsgroups. 7. (Reposted from the CAF Archive:) Stanford overturned a ban on rec.humor.funny by referring the issue to the Committee on Libraries. The Committee said that "the criteria for including newsgroups in computer systems or removing them should be identical to those for including books in or removing books from libraries." 8. (Computer administrator at Iowa State:) Having a selection policy based on Library policy is the proverbial ounce of prevention. <1991Oct18.025306.11694@news.iastate.edu> Notes 9-10: Other notes related to the brouhaha. 9. What good is Usenet? The Net instantiates the ideal of a marketplace of ideas. Unlike other free forums, it allows users to express their ideas without drowning each other out. It even helped in the fight against the Soviet coup. <8661@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> 10. Some say that Usenet should be hidden from the press as long as possible. This is wrong; it is like hiding the University Library from reporters for fear that they will discover that it contains explicit material. Also, to avoid complaints from offended Usenet readers, computer sites should warn users that they might find some material offensive and that they read at their own risk. Note 11 is a continuation of last week's thread about grade and high schoolers getting sexual material from the net. 11. (Janet Murray, an organizer of the Texas K-12 net): Reporter Joe Abernathy's report of a "major porno incident" was inaccurate. No Texas students did see or could have seen the "porno" article. <199110171337.AA17490@eff.org> Note 12 is a repost from comp.admin.policy. 12. 260 people replied to a survey about undergrad access to the Net. Most of the sites reported that undergrads have full net access. <9110191524.AA07825@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> - Carl] In this issue: Carl M. Kadie 31 U of Washington Summary Jeff Wandling 36 alt.sex Daniel Mittleman 24 > Carl M. Kadie 161 >USENET censorship strikes University of Washington! Carl M. Kadie 214 > comp-academic-fr 45 >Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky John McCarthy 77 >Censorship on the USENET John Hascall 30 >USENET censorship strikes University of Washington! Douglas W Jones 32 >What is good about Netnews/Usenet Jamie Saker 67 >USENET censorship strikes University of Washington! Janet Murray 150 [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: So what is the answer? R B Larkington 736 [comp.admin.policy] SUMMARY: Undergrad Internet Access 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 line: send acad-freedom README 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: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: U of Washington Summary Message-ID: <199110180040.AA04264@eff.org> Sender: kadie Date: 17 Oct 91 16:40:16 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org For those who arrived late, here is a summary (written for the EFFector Online) and information about getting back notes. If anyone can offer corrections or more details (like what really happened at CWU?), please post them. During a state audit of Central Washington University, an auditor reportedly found that an employee was using the machine for private gain. The use may have involved graphics files of naked people on an administrative machine. The employee was demoted. While investigating the story, the Seattle newspapers discovered that the topic of sex is not banned at state universities. The headline of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer article on page 1 was "Pornography files in UW [University of Washington] computer". The Seattle Times headline was "State Probing Probing Porn Files in UW Computer". In the aftermath of the newspaper articles, the alt.sex newsgroup has been removed from Western Washington University by "administrative request". The University of Washington has so far resisted pressure to censor computer material. According to an official at U. of Washington, the University is developing a selection policy for computer material. The policy may be based on library selection policy. (Aside: The U. of Washington library, like most academic libraries, subscribes to Playboy). An archive file of (some of) the Usenet articles about the situation is available. Send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send acad-freedom u.washington.edu - Carl From: jeff@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Jeff Wandling) Subject: alt.sex Summary: I don't understand how this can be allowed to happen Keywords: alt.sex censorship Message-ID: <1991Oct17.181138.9478@henson.cc.wwu.edu> Date: 17 Oct 91 18:11:38 GMT Distribution: alt Recently at Western Washington University, alt.sex groups and alt.binary.pictures.erotica groups were removed from our USENET database. This was precipitated by events at the University of Washington (Seattle). It seems that the local newspaper (Seattle PI) reported that "pornographic" files existed on UofW computer equipment. The article went on to describe what kinds of files there were (list included color pictures, and soft-porn stories). Earlier at Central Washington University, a director of some sort was demoted because of a similar situation (where porn files existed on Computer Center equipment). UofW seemed to stand firm to the situation and gave the signal that it would find it neither "wise, legal, or proper to ban or control the pornographic material and other activites" Western Washington University on the other hand found it quite easy to ban and control the "alt.sex" material. And the Vice Provost for "information and communication" made the decision that such material would not be allowed on campus. Paraphrasing, he said it was regarded as "junk mail" and we won't accept it. As of this writing, access to these newsgroups is not provided by the University. But, if just one professor states that he or she needs the groups for any reason then they will be re-instated. This to me is a crock because not one group we do carry is there by request of any professor here. It just doesn't make any sense. No one is pointing a gun to our heads and forcing us to read anything. Any comments? -- Jeff Wandling disclaimer: "I don't disclaim nuthin!"- me quote: "Ooh, you're an icky student-thing! No wonder you keep such funny hours! :-)" -bill trost From: dmittleman@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman) Subject: Re: alt.sex Summary: I don't understand how this can be allowed to happen Keywords: alt.sex censorship Message-ID: <17OCT199119542932@misvax.mis.arizona.edu> Date: 18 Oct 91 02:54:00 GMT References: <1991Oct17.181138.9478@henson.cc.wwu.edu> Distribution: alt,local Nntp-Posting-Host: misvax.mis.arizona.edu News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41 My concern is where all this (banning of alt.sex in Washington) might lead. I wonder where campuses will draw the line between what they consider constructive discussion and what they consider pornography. Someday very soon some Jesse Helms type character is going to find out that there is a newsgroup called talk.abortion and he is going to say, "They may have the freedom of speech to talk about abortion all they want, but the federal government surely doesn't have to pay for it." And he is going to do his level best to see that the federal government puts no money towards a USENET environment where abortion is discussed. At the point that such actions are seriously considered - and I see this alt.sex controversy a large step towards it - the freedom of intellectual discourse on college campuses is significantly diminished - and that is to the detriment of us all. =========================================================================== daniel david mittleman - danny@arizona.edu - (602) 621-2932 "Have your people call my people and we'll do lunch." Xref: eff alt.censorship:1959 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1270 alt.sex:21669 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington! Message-ID: <1991Oct17.021516.851@eff.org> References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct17.002734.23300@milton.u.washington.edu> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 02:15:16 GMT According to a correspondent at Western Washington University (WWU) alt.sex has been removed by "administrative request". If you accept the principle that computer sites should select newsgroups the way that (traditional) libraries select magazine subscriptions, then the removal violates the Library Bill of Rights. This American Library Association document says: "Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval." [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala] The procedure used to remove the material also violates academic freedom. Here is an excerpt from the American Library Association's "Workbook for Selection Policy Writing": --- ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/selection-workbook.ala --- POLICIES ON CONTROVERSIAL MATERIALS. Here, or in another place in your policy you should include a statement on intellectual freedom and why it is important to maintain. You may wish to include the test of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," and the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS. (A copy is included at the end of this booklet.) Sample Statement on intellectual freedom: o The school board subscribes in principle to the statements of policy on library philosophy as expressed in the American Library Association LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS, a copy of which is appended to and made a part of this policy. RECONSIDERATION. Occasional objections to instructional materials will be made despite the quality of the selection process; therefore, the procedure for handling reconsideration of challenged materials in response to questions concerning their appropriateness should be stated. This procedure should establish the framework for registering a complaint that provides for a hearing with appropriate action while defending the principles of freedom of information, the student's right to access of materials, and the professional responsibility and integrity of the school faculty. The principles of intellectual freedom are inherent in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and are expressed in the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS adopted by the Council of the American Library Association. In the event instructional materials are questioned, the principles of intellectual freedom should e defended rather than the materials. List here the specific steps that will be taken when you are asked to reconsider materials in your collection. These steps should include: --asking the complainant to fill out a written complaint form. (See attached form as an example.) --assigning a review committee to examine the material in question. --requesting that the committee report their findings to the school board. The procedure for handling complaints should describe every step from the initial response to the complaint through the highest appeal. o Procedure for handling complaints No duly selected materials whose appropriateness is challenged shall be removed from the school except upon the recommendation of a review committee (as provided for below) with the concurrence of the Superintendent or, upon the Superintendent's recommendation, the concurrence of the Board of Education, or upon formal action of the Board of Education when a recommendation of a review committee is appealed to it. Procedures to be observed. a. All complaints to staff members shall be reported to the building principal involved, whether received by telephone, letter, or in personal conversation. b. The principal shall contact the complainant to discuss the complaint and attempt to resolve it informally by explaining the philosophy and goals of the school district and/or the library media center. c. If the complaint is not resolved informally, the complainant shall be supplied with a packet of materials consisting of the District's instructional goals and objectives, materials selection policy statement, and the procedure for handling objections. This packet will also include a standard printed form which shall be completed and returned before consideration will be given to the complaint. d. If the formal request for reconsideration has not been received by the principal within two weeks, it shall be considered closed. If the request is returned, the reasons for selection of the specific work shall be reestablished by the appropriate staff. e. In accordance with statement of philosophy, no questioned materials shall be removed from the school pending a final decision. Pending the outcome of the request for reconsideration, however, access to questioned materials can be denied to the child (or children) of the parents making the complaint, if they so desire. f. Upon receipt of a completed objection form, the principal in the building involved will call together a committee of five to consider the complaint. This committee shall consist of the curriculum director and from the school involved: the principal, the library media center director, a teacher, and a PTA representative. g. The committee shall meet to discuss the material, following the guidelines set forth in Instructions to Evaluation Committee and shall prepare a report on the material containing their recommendations on disposition of the matter. h. The principal shall notify complainant of the decision and send a formal report and recommendation to the Superintendent. In answering the complainant, the principal shall explain the book selection system, give the guidelines used for selection, and cite authorities used in reaching decisions. If the committee decides to keep the work that caused the complaint, the complainant shall be given an explanation. If the complaint is valid, the principal will acknowledge it and make recommended changes . i. If the complainant is still not satisfied, he/she may ask the Superintendent to present an appeal to the Board of Education which shall make a final determination of the issue. The Board of Education may seek assistance from outside organizations such as the American Library Association, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, etc., in making its determination. ---------------------------------------------------- -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Xref: eff alt.censorship:2038 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1335 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington! Message-ID: <1991Oct19.151904.20184@eff.org> References: <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <1991Oct16.232250.23487@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <4976@tamsun.TAMU.EDU> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1991 15:19:04 GMT byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes: >I just want to point out one thing: according to what I heard recently >from a journalism professor specializing in first amendment rights, >if a state institution (such as Texas A&M or the University of Illinois) >sets up a forum for exchange of information, then the law prevents >the institution from closing down that forum based on its CONTENT. They >may close it down e.g., due to lack of funds. Here is a reference and a quote: [From Public School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe:] ----- begin quote---- School Sponsorship of Student Publications School authorities often have claimed that they exert more control over school-sponsored publications than over nonschool material, but the judiciary has recognized that constitutional protections apply to both types of student literature. Mere school affiliation does not remove student literature from first amendment protection. The judiciary has reasoned that a governmental body "is not necessarily the unfettered master of all it creates." Thus, the content of a school-sponsored paper that is established as a medium for student expression cannot be regulated more closely than a nonsponsored paper. For example, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals [Connecticut, New York, Vermont - Carl] affirmed a decision in which the federal district court held that a [high school] principle could not prohibit the distribution of a school-sponsored newspaper in which students placed a four-page supplement with information about contraception and abortion. The court noted that the articles in the supplement were intended to convey information and that the subjects were treated in a serious manner. While recognizing that the supplement might create some controversy, the court reasoned that it did not threaten a disruption in the educational environment. Although school boards are not obligated to support student papers, if a given publication was originally created as a free speech forum, removal of financial or other school board support can be construed as an unlawful effort to stifle free expression. In essence, school authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply because of displeasure with the content. [...] ---- end of quote--- >I know this has been covered well w.r.t. printed material. For example, >a case where a student publication devoted to creative writing which was >shut down by university officials because of sexually explicit content >has appeared before the 5th district courts. The courts have invariably >come down on the side of free expression. The Supreme Court's Public Forum Doctrine is based on function, not medium. It already covers everything from campus mail systems, to traditional bulletin boards, to student newspapers. In my opinion, it doesn't need to be extended to apply to campus BBS and Usenet facilities, merely applied. In San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986), the appellate court applied the principles set down by the Supreme Court saying: -- begin quote --- III. THE PUBLIC FORUM DOCTRINE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT [...] The values embodied in the First Amendment require the state, under certain circumstances, to provide members of the public with access to its facilities for purpose of speech. Certain state facilities, which may be appropriately used for communication, enjoy special constitution status as "public forums." [...references...] In these public forums, the First Amendment narrowly circumscribes the government's power to exclude or regulate speech. Of course, a state's mere ownership or control of a facility does not, in itself, guarantee access under the First Amendment. [... references ...] Similarly, merely permitting public access to a government facility does not necessarily open it for use as a public forum. [... references ...] However, even with respect to nonpublic forums, the state may not act unreasonably. _Cornelius_, 105 S.Ct at 3448. In _Perry_ and _Cornelius_, the Supreme Court identified three types of forums to which the public's right to access varies, as does the type of limitations the state may impose upon the right. The Court first focused on "places which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate," such as streets and parks, where "the rights of the state to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed. [...references...] The Court stated that "{i}n these quintessential public forums, the government may not prohibit all communicative activity. For the state to enforce a content-based exclusion it mush show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. The state may also enforce regulations of the time, place and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open amble alternative channels for communcations. _Perry_ [...reference...]" The second type of public forum on which the Court focused consists of "public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a place for expressive activity." [refs] The courts have come to call this type of public forum a "limited public forum" or a "public forum by designation." In such a forum, "{t}he Constitution forbids a state to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first place." [refs] A limited public forum may, depending on its nature and the nature of the state's actions, be open to the general public for the discussion of all topics, or there may be limitations on the groups allowed to use the forums or the topics that can be discussed. Thus, a limited public forum may be open to certain groups for the discussion if any topic, [ref] or to the entire public for the discussion of certain topics, [ref] or some combination of the two. Once the state has created a limited public forum, its ability to impose further constraints on the type of speech permitted in that forum is quite restricted: "{a}lthough a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." [refs] "Thus the identical broad free speech rights attach to the first and second types of public forums, [ref]although in the latter type of forums those broad rights apply only within the particular boundaries of the specific forum that has been established. The third type of forum is "{p}ublic property ... which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communications," [ref] such as a military base or jail. The Court recognized that this type of forum is governed by standard different from those applicable to the first two. The Court stated that "{i}n addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the state may reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as that regulation on speech is _reasonable_". [ref] "The existence of reasonable grounds for limiting access to a nonpublic forum, however, will not save a regulation that is in reality a facade for viewpoint-based discrimination." _Cornelius_, 105 S.Ct. at 3454. IV. SCHOOL NEWSPAPERS AS A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM The Board first contends that the school newspaper falls into the third category of forums, nonpublic forums. We disagree, and hold that the newspapers fall into the second category, limited pubic forums. In deciding whether a particular forum is a limited public forum or a nonpublic forum, we must determine what type of forum the government intended to created. [ref] The government's intent is evidenced by "{its} policy and practice ... {as well as} the nature of the property and its compatibility with expressive activity." [ref] In the case before use, the evidence clearly indicates an intent to create a limited public forum. Newspapers, including the Board's are devoted entirely to expressive activity. Everything that appears in a newspaper is speech, whether commercial, political, artistic, or some other type. It is difficult to think of any other kind of property that is more compatible with expressive activity. In addition, the admitted policy and practice of the Board is to allow a particular group -- the students -- to discuss any topic in the newspapers, subject only to certain conditions not relevant to the issues before us. Thus, under the test enumerated in _Cornelius_, the Board's newspapers, like most other school papers constitute, at a minimum, a limited public forum of the type found in _Widmar_. [ref] [...] Thus, the Board has allowed certain members of the public -- various military recruiters -- to use its newspapers to engage in speech that is not essentially commercial in nature but that combines elements of political and commercial speech. As a result, the Board's _actual_ policy and practice leads, under _Cornelius_, to the conclusion that the Board has established the school newspapers as a limited public forum in which students can discuss any topic, and in which non-students can engage in commercial speech generally and in speech which is both political and commercial with respect to at least on important and highly controversial topic -- military service. Because the Board on a number of occasions permitted the publication of advertisements advocating military service, there can be no question by that the Board intended to open the newspapers for advertisements on this topic -- at least by one side to the debate. [...] B. Viewpoint-Based Discrimination Furthermore, it appears that the Board was engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination. By allowing the publication of the military recruitment advertisements, the Board allowed the presentation of one side of a highly controversial issue. The Board provided a forum to those who advocated military service. The Board then refused, without a valid reason, to allow those who oppose military service to use the same forum. The only reasonable inference is that the Board was engaging in viewpoint discrimination. As the Supreme Court has stated, "{t}o permit one side of a debatable public question to have a monopoly in expressing its views ... is the antithesis of constitutional guarantees." _City of Madison_ [refs] In other words, "the First Amendment means that the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. _Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp_ [ref]. Viewpoint-based discrimination is not permitted even in a non-public forum. _Cornelius_ [ref]. Accordingly, the Board's viewpoint discrimination provides a second ground for holding that even if the school newspapers do not constitute a public forum, the Board violated the First Amendment in excluding CARD's advertisement. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. >From comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Mon Aug 26 17:41:52 1991 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 21:32:02 GMT From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Message-Id: <1991Aug26.213202.23932@eff.org> From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org References: <475E3B736880119D@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Subject: Re: Netnews censorship at U. of Kentucky Status: OR >> In an >>illustrative case, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a >>university could not change its funding policy for a student paper >>based on the 'hue and cry' of the public objecting to a particular >>issue {78}. SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) writes: [...] >But what if the reason is any one of: >1) Fear of a libel suit >2) Anti-pornography laws >3) Running out of funds due to budget cuts >4) Not one issue but all issues cause a "hue and cry", something not addressed > in your article. I've some info on the libel question (that may also apply to "Anti-pornography" laws). >From _Public School Law: Teachers' and Student' Rights_ by Martha McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe: ---start quote--- [p.124] Permissible and Impermissible Content While courts are reluctant to endorse prior restrains on the content of student publicaitons, they are more inclined to support disciplinary action after distribution has begun. [High-school- Carl] [s]tudents can be punished and publications confiscated if the material distributed forsters a disruption of the educational process, is libelous or obscene, or encourages others to engage in dangerous or unlawful activity. [...] Courts also have ruled that the mere discussion of controversial issues cannot be barred from student publications. The judiciary has recognized that material dealing with war, drugs, abortion, and birth control information is not too controversial for high school students. [...] --- end quote--- -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu I do not represent EFF; this is just me. ------------ From: jmc@Gang-of-Four.usenet (John McCarthy) Subject: Re: Censorship on the USENET Message-ID: Date: 2 Nov 90 05:38:32 GMT References: <1990Oct21.141502.26557@hoss.unl.edu> <1990Oct31.141646.25350@ifi.uio.no> <1990Nov01.064916.19218@looking.on.ca> Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Distribution: comp In-Reply-To: bzs@world.std.com's message of 2 Nov 90 00:51:46 GMT In 1989 rec.humor.funny was suppressed in some of the Stanford University computers. After a campaign it was re-installed in those computers. It was never suppressed in the Computer Science Department's computers. There follow two relevant documents. The first is self-explanatory, and the second came about through the following sequence of events. (1) Donald Kennedy, Stanford's President, told the Academic Senate that he supported the suppression but would defer to the Senate. (2) The Senate Steering Committee asked the Committee on Libraries for a general policy recommendation on how to treat electronic newsgroups. Referring the issue to the Committee on Libraries indicated what kind of issue the Steering Committee thought was involved. (3) The Committee on Libraries made the statement given below. (4) The Steering Committee asked the Vice-President for Information Resources (i.e. the boss of the computer centers) whether he preferred to back down and re-establish rec.humor.funny or have the matter discussed by the full Senate. (5) He backed down somewhat grumpily. The following statement was passed unanimously at a meeting of the Computer Science Department faculty of Stanford University on Tuesday, Feb 21, 1989. Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny. Computer scientists and computer users have been involved in making information resources widely available since the 1960s. Such resources are analogous to libraries. The newsgroups available on various networks are the computer analog of magazines and partial prototypes of future universal computer libraries. These libraries will make available the information resources of the whole world to anyone's terminal or personal computer. Therefore, the criteria for including newsgroups in computer systems or removing them should be identical to those for including books in or removing books from libraries. For this reason, and since the resource requirements for keeping newsgroups available are very small, we consider it contrary to the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in University computers. We regard it as analogous to removing a book from the library. To be able to read anything subject only to cost limitations is an essential part of academic freedom. Censorship is not an appropriate tool for preventing or dealing with offensive behavior. We therefore think that AIR and SDC should rescind the purge of rec.humor.funny. The Computer Science Department has also decided not to censor Department Computers. ***** Here's something else - a statement by the Stanford faculty committee on libraries. Office Memo, Stanford University Libraries ~date: April 12, 1989 ~From: Joan Krasner, Secretary, C-Lib The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the April 10th meeting of C-Lib which considered the matter of computer bulletin boards on campus. The Preamble to the Statement on Academic Freedom (1974) states that ``Expression of the widest range of viewpoints should be encouraged, free from institutional orthodoxy and from internal or external coercion.'' It is the view of the Academic Council Committee on Libraries that this statement pertains to materials received on computer bulletin boards on campus. Acquisition and access to information in new forms should be subject only to financial limits and other standard criteria of collection such as the useful life of the materials, storage capacity, etc. - approved by Academic Council Commmittee on Libraries, April 10, 1989. XC: Gerald Gillespie Xref: eff alt.censorship:2002 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1308 alt.sex:21800 From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington! Message-ID: <1991Oct18.025306.11694@news.iastate.edu> Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System) References: <1991Oct17.060137.5509@milton.u.washington.edu> <1991Oct17.133242.17424@eff.org> <1991Oct17.152408.25384@milton.u.washington.edu> Distribution: na Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 02:53:06 GMT tdowling@lib.washington.edu (Thomas Dowling) writes: }kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: }> I think there is still hope. We can point to universities like }> Stanford and (hopefully) U. of Washington as places where library }> policy has been successfully applied computer-material selection. }> }As a librarian at the University of Washington, I'm relatively }confident in saying that the University Libraries have not developed }or been asked to develop a collection policy for computer files }available on the campus-wide Uniform Access machines. I am not even }aware that anyone has even mentioned the idea to our head of collection }development. I am sure that the much more likely case is the various University Computation Centers (and their ilk) have used their Library policies as the basis for their Newsgroup policy -- I know we have because I served on the committee which wrote it. If your site has not done this I strongly recommend it -- having a policy which we have on hand to give to a `complainant' has surely proved to be the proverbial ounce of prevention. John -- John Hascall An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger. Project Vincent Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu Ames, IA 50011 (515) 294-9551 Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1296 alt.censorship:1989 From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) Subject: Re: What is good about Netnews/Usenet Message-ID: <8661@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> Date: 17 Oct 91 18:38:36 GMT References: <1991Oct17.173839.23730@eff.org> Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk by kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie): > > The best thing about the Net is its diversity. ... > ... The Chinese students studying in North America and Europe used the > Net [to] organize the resistance ... I'd suggest adding to this the following: Users of the net in the USSR used the network to coordinate the resistance to the failed soviet coup of August 1991 (the record of this is in the archives of talk.politics.soviet and allied newsgroups -- it's very impressive reading!) > > The Net instantiates the ideal of a marketplace of ideas. It is a free > forum, perhaps the broadest and most accessable ever to exists. I'd suggest adding the following: When compared to other free forums, from the Forum in Rome to the editorial pages of a modern newspaper, USENET (and similar electronic conference media such as EIES (?) and PLATO Notesfiles) have the immense advantage of allowing a multitude of simultaneous users to express their ideas without drowning each other out. Thus, for example, the discussions in talk.politics.abortion and in talk.politics.middle-east are both very heated, but they only occasionally spill over into other newsgroups, disrupting other discussions. A USENET user who wants to concentrate on data compression (in comp.compression) or physics (in sci.physics) is free to concentrate on these subjects without being bothered by intrusions from these raging discussions. Doug Jones jones@cs.uiowa.edu Xref: eff alt.censorship:1988 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1295 alt.sex:21755 From: jsaker@unomaha.edu (Jamie Saker) Subject: Re: USENET censorship strikes University of Washington! Message-ID: Sender: news@news.unomaha.edu (UNO Network News Server) References: <7FyV01w164w@halcyon.com> <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> <1991Oct16.220601.1230@zip.eecs.umich.edu> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1991 18:28:37 GMT baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) writes: >In article <1991Oct16.180613.19161@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >>elf@halcyon.com writes: >> >>> According to a news article published 10/15/91 Morning in the >>>Seattle Post-Intelligncer, the University of Washington had "Pornography >>>Files in it's Computer." >> ... >It seems to me that USENET(*) should be hidden from the media as long >as possible. Enough media attention would be enough to make most >universities drop every alt.* newsgroup, especially ones like alt.evil, >alt.sex.bestiality, and other alt.sex.* groups where stories might >be posted about torture, etc. I disagree. I personally volunteer my time to show any interested reporter piles of explicit sexual language, pictures and "unmoral" activities (such as beastiality, homosexuality, etc.) - which is readily available to minors and other folks. All we'll do is take a walk to our campus library (or any University library). If they write a trashy, sensationalistic story which generates mobs of people (sans brain) who demand our libraries remove all material of that nature, then perhaps our country is in worse shape than previously thought:-( (Anyone remember the beginning of the Third Reich, the book burnings, raiding of libraries, purging of intellectuals, destruction of "unacceptable art", persecution of composers of "vulgar and obscene music", etc.?) >I think the rule should be, if a reporter asks about your system, show them >the good, clean, wholesome newsgroups and not any of the dirty, bad, >tasteless ones. The content of USENET should not be debated in the media. >As soon as it starts to be, say goodbye to freedom of expression. To reduce this discussion to "just removing a few nasty pictures from a computer" is to trivialize our Constitution. Furthermore, Universities who are considering restricting "just the nasty groups" take note: By censoring selected newsgroups, you may be acting as a guarantor of the information. Therefore, if a user reads any material which offends them in the available groups (say a article accidently crossposted to rec.equestrian from alt.sex.beastiality), the University may now be liable since they were guaranteeing the non-offensive nature of the newsgroups by their censorship. Best all around policy: disclaimer news. Require acceptance of a disclaimer to view news. Even consider requiring a second disclaimer to get access to any and all alt.* groups. Therefore, any individual who is offended is offended at their own risk. Not suit-proof, but a much better position legally! >Brad Baillod baillod@eecs.umich.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jamie Saker jsaker@odin.unomaha.edu . . . . "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." . . . . DISCLAIMER: The opinions listed above are only mine! But you're entitled. . to share them at your own risk! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From: Janet.Murray@f23.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Janet Murray) Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv] Re: So what is the answer? Message-ID: <199110171337.AA17490@eff.org> Date: 17 Oct 91 03:38:23 GMT * Original to Uucp @ 1:105/42 in netmail * Forwarded Wed Oct 16 1991 20:37:59 by Janet Murray @ 1:105/23 Hello, Joe - * * * * * * * B A C K G R O U N D * * * * * * * I have been _deeply_ reluctant to post in response to this thread, but as one of the parties involved in "the incident", I feel that clarification is needed. Please note that this is provided as "background" material, and that I do _not_ expect to be quoted. You may, however, call me for more information if you wish. U>Robert Carlitz writes: > smear the Texas network, citing what you call a > "major porno incident." [Joe Abernathy responds:] U>That's a direct quote from a user or administrator of the Texas U>Education Network . . . U>Let's open discussion on whether this was a "major incident." The U>statewide Texas educational network shut down usenet access U>within days of turning it on, because of what was described as "awful, In _fact_ (and _just_ the facts): Jack Crawford and I were invited to (and attended) a meeting of the Consortium for School Networking in Austin, Texas, August 15-16, 1991, because we are co-founders of K12Net, a voluntary collaboration among FidoNet System Operators interested in K-12 education. K12Net features conferences (called "echoes" on FidoNet) which are dedicated to curricular issues (in math, science, language arts, social studies, art, business, etc. education), foreign languages (French, German, Russian, Spanish), and classroom-to-classroom projects (in rotating "channels" designated for specified periods of time). K12Net also offers "chat" areas for elementary, middle (or junior high), and high school students. The K12Net echoes are also available as USENET newsgroups in the hierarchy k12.* Two things happened while we were in Texas: TENET began collecting the k12.* newsgroups, and a _rogue_ user at the U of Washington (with a stolen account) transposted a series of messages from alt.sex to k12.chat.* By the time I arrived home, the Postmaster at the U of Washington had already been made aware of "the incident" and closed out the account which originated the messages. * * * In _my OPINION_ * * * The fact that this single incident has become an issue _two months later_ is a mystery. K12Net has been operating for more than a year, and this has been the _only_ incident of its kind. The "coincidence" <"within two days"> was _truly_ a coincidence. U>The disclaimer that I was gathering material for an article was U>included as a matter of journalistic ethics. It's revealing to REMINDER: this is "background" material!! U>posts did include such a disclaimer, offering him a reminder that U>he was dealing with a reporter, and offering him a chance to go U>on background. REMINDER: this is "background" material!! > net. In extreme cases, where there is willful abuse of the privilege of > net access, universities suspend the privilege of access. Which is _exactly_ what happened in this case. Quoting Robert Carlitz: > You should realize that your broadcast of such an aggressive letter of > inquiry to multiple newsgroups and the personal mailboxes of several > individuals must be viewed as an aggressive and hostile act by all those > of us who receive the brunt of its impact. I intend to transpost this message to cosndisc, com-priv, and K12.sysop. U>My query was posted only to the groups pertinent to the U>discussion; Quite a few - but it looks like you "missed" eff.talk U>see my mailbox as a result of the post.) More for your mailbox. U>But I don't think there were any "perpetrators" in this thing. There _was_ a perpetrator - who _deliberately_ used a stolen account on a University system. U>That they immediately found material so U>controversial U>that entire portions of network access were shut down seems to me U>to be a topic most worthy of reasoned discussion. There were _no_ school children on TENET at the time. U>I'm not trying to get a cheap ride off of sensationalistic U>material. _Really?_ U>I'm trying to approach a tough subject that needs to be U>approached. I've had two directors of regional NSF networks tell U>me U>that they consider "appropriate use" to be THE most significant U>issue U>facing this community today. It is a tough subject, and "appropriate use" is a significant issue. However, I believe that if you scanned _all_ the messages in _all_ 37 K12Net echo areas, you would discover that significant, appropriate, educational material _far_ outweighs the occasional inappropriate message, and that K-12 teachers and students are enthusiastically using telecommunications to broaden their educational environment. U>people always start shouting. I'm _not_ SHOUTING; but I do believe your focus has been somewhat narrow. U>that way, but we're not going to get anywhere by ignoring U>reality. The _reality_ is that there are significant attempts to connect K-12 teachers and students through telecommunications in a _wide_ variety of projects involving a large number of students and teachers, and an _insignificant_ percentage of inappropriate messages. | Janet Murray, Librarian System Operator | Wilson High School HI TECH TOOLS for Librarians BBS | 1151 S.W. Vermont St. FidoNet 1:105/23 | Portland, OR 97219 (503) 245-4961 | (503) 280-5280 x450 K12Net Council of Coordinators | jmurray@psg.com From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: [comp.admin.policy] SUMMARY: Undergrad Internet Access Message-ID: <9110191524.AA07825@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Sender: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu Date: 19 Oct 91 05:24:51 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org From: rbl@maria.wustl.edu (Robert B Larkington) Date: 19 Oct 91 06:23:32 GMT Last month I posted a survey about undergrad internet access for cs majors. As alot of people were curious, I am posting the results. First here is what was asked: -------------------------------------------------- What is the name of your university? Does your university allow undergrad CS students access to these internet features: Local Mail? Global Mail? Reading usenet news? Posting news? Local FTP? Global FTP? Local telnet? Global telnet? If the answer to any of the above is "no", what are the reasons for that decision? -------------------------------------------------- I received about 260 replies to the survey. Most of the sites answered "yes" to all the questions and they are marked "FULL ACCESS". A few sites limited access to local hosts only and they are marked "LOCAL ACCESS". Anything else I marked "LIMITED ACCESS". I also included any additional comments I received (such as the fact that the answers to the survey applied to all undergrads, not just CS majors). Most of the sites that restricted access seem to be outside of the US. To answer a few questions I received about the situation here at Washington University in St Louis MO: first: At the time of the posting, the Center for Engineering Computing (CEC) here had installed a cisco router which blocked all outbound connections to off campus sites. It also blocked all telnet/rlogin connections to non-CEC hosts on the campus network. USENET reading and posting and global and local mail were still allowed. Currently all restrictions imposed by the cisco router have been removed. This was due to: 1. a change in directors at the CEC 2. strong lobbying from the Engineering Council (engineering student govt.) 3. data from this summary second: Yes, this is the same school which provides wuarchive.wustl.edu. The difference in attitude is due to the fact that wuarchive is run by the Office of the Network Coordinator (ONC) and the undergrad CS/engineering class machines are run by CEC -- two totally separate groups. third: There was a question as to why "finger rbl@maria.wustl.edu" returned "guest account". This is because maria.wustl.edu is not a CEC machine. It is part of a research group (CCRC) and I am just posting from here because there is more disk space to store replies than on a CEC account (disk quotas). lastly: I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to reply to the survey!!! I've tried to present the results in a compact table for easy reference (rather than simply posting all the replies directly). Basically I list the school name, its access, any comments and then the number of people from that school who replied to the survey. RBL school access/comments --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ANU LOCAL ACCESS (limited # of USENET groups, no posting, no global e-mail) Australian National University, Computer Science Department Due to swamped Internet link 1 Answer Appalachian St FULL ACCESS 1 Answer Arizona State U ??? CMS machine has global mail. VAX has global telnet, but can't access CMS machine(??). 1 Answer Bates College FULL ACCESS (just started with USENET though) Access open to all students. 1 Answer Brigham Young FULL ACCESS 1 Answer Brown FULL ACCESS (for any student) 2 Answers Brunel U LOCAL ACCESS (see below) local mail ok. Global mail and USENET only for 4th year students. Local ftp/telnet ok. No global ftp/telnet, unless pre-arranged. Due to: costs, distractions, security, etc.. 1 Answer Boston U FULL ACCESS 1 Answer Cal State Chico ??? 1 Answer Cal. polytech FULL ACCESS (for any student) 2 Answers Caltech FULL ACCESS (for any undergrad, accounts are free) [cs dept may place restrictions on telnet?] 5 Answers Calvin College FULL ACCESS (some machines have limited USENET feed) 9600baud link to Internet 1 Answer Case Western FULL ACCESS 3 Answers Chalmers U FULL ACCESS (computer engineering) Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden 2 Answers Chemnitz U FULL ACCESS Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany 1 Answer Clemson U FULL ACCESS 1 Answer CMU FULL ACCESS (for any undergrad - see below) Global Mail/News is turned off by default, but can be turned on by reading a help file [with USENET rules, et al] which tells you how to turn it on. 5 Answers Columbia FULL ACCESS (to all students, not just CS undergrads) 3 Answers Cornell U FULL ACCESS 3 Answers Curtin U LOCAL ACCESS (local mail and reading news only) 1 Answer dekin.oz.au LOCAL ACCESS (global mail ok, see below) Can get full access if you are an honors or grad student or with lecture's permission 1 Answer Delft U of Tech FULL ACCESS (with unix account) Delft University of Technology (Holland) 2 Answers Drexel U FULL ACCESS (except for some global telnet) 1 Answer Duke U FULL ACCESS (USENET not on academic computing systems, but is on CS) 2 Answers Eindhoven U FULL ACCESS Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands 1 Answer ETH Zurich #1 FULL ACCESS (see below) Global access restricted on systems without authentication methods (e.g. terminal servers, PC's), and public access student workstations (due to bad experiences). Other student machines have full internet access. 1 Answer ETH Zurich #2 LOCAL ACCESS (news posting, global mail ok) Due to a cracking attempt. 1 Answer [Not sure why there is a difference between #1 and #2?? -rbl] Florida State U FULL ACCESS 1 Answer G. Wash. U FULL ACCESS limit on local disk space 1 Answer Harvard U FULL ACCESS Has free Scienec Center accounts. Access from some dorms as well. 1 Answer Helsinki U of T FULL ACCESS Helsinki University of Technology Users instructed not to waste resources and to respect other sites and people on the net. 3 Answers IFI.UIO.NO LOCAL (inside norway) ACCESS (news reading/posting ok) Global mail ok. Global ftp is disallowed to save disk space and bandwidth. Global telnet is disallowed to avoid breakin attempts. (policy is only partially enforced) 2 Answers INRS Telecom. FULL ACCESS (restricted incomming due to security concerns) [Note: Graduate degrees only here] 1 Answer Iowa State U FULL ACCESS (for any student) 1 Answer Johns Hopkins FULL ACCESS (for any student) 1 Answer Kansas State U FULL ACCESS (for all students) 1 Answer KTH FULL ACCESS Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden 1 Answer Linkopings U FULL ACCESS (even to non-cs types) Linkopings Universitet Linkopings Tekniska Hogskola (LiTH) 1 Answer LIU LOCAL ACCESS (full USENET, global mail ok) Linkoping University and Institute of Technology, Sweden To save bandwidth and prevent abuse note: Computer-club "Lysator" has TELNET/FTP access to internet (can join it to get access). 1 Answer Loughborough U LIMITED FULL ACCESS (see below) Loughborough University of Technology On JANET. Can access Internet ftp via NIFTP gateway. Global telnet is possible now (wasn't before due to congestion). 1 Answer McGill U FULL ACCESS 1 Answer Melbourne U LOCAL ACCESS (usenet reading/posting, global mail ok) 1 Answer Michigan StateU FULL ACCESS (but you have to pay for an account) 1 Answer Michigan Tech U FULL ACCESS (for any student) 1 Answer Mississippi St. FULL ACCESS (for CS undergrad and people taking CS classes) disk quota 15 MB. 1 Answer MIT FULL ACCESS 4 Answers Monash U FULL ACCESS (global access from "centralized" server machines) Monash University, Australia 2 Answers NAU FULL ACCESS (see below) Northern Arizona University. Posting to USENET allowed after reading ettiquette etc... 1 Answer NCSU FULL ACCESS (some services need to be initiated from the Eos system) network games not allowed due to bandwidth problems 1 Answer ND State U LIMITED FULL ACCESS (no telnet to ports > 1000) North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 2 Answers New Mexico Tech LOCAL ACCESS (global mail, news ok) Administration said that network "police" refused to allow undergrads access and would remove school from network if it didn't comply. [might be changing?] 2 Answers NIU FULL ACCESS (see below) Northern Illinois University No network access from PC's. The VM system has all except for global mail and USENET. The Unix systems have full access. Was a problem a year ago with students tying up stations playing games (muds?). Was resolved by removing telnet access for part of one semester. 1 Answer NJIN FULL ACCESS except USENET (see below) Kean College of New Jersey main machines are PRIMES and they don't support USENET 1 Answer NLUUG UUCP SITE, LOCAL ACCESS OK AHA-TMF, Polytechnical Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 1 Answer Northwestern U FULL ACCESS (for any student) 2 Answers Oberlin College FULL ACCESS (even for non-cs types) 1 Answer Ohio-State FULL ACCESS (even for non-cis types) Full access is on general access machines. CIS dept policy is that undergrads have local access only but it isn't strictly enforced (the policy is from the old days when access was expensive and slow). 3 Answers Oregon State U FULL ACCESS (for "_anybody_" student or not) 2 Answers Penn State U FULL ACCESS (limited time per day?) 1 Answer Phillip Inst. LIMITED LOCAL ACCESS (E-Mail, read USENET (no posting), no ftp/telnet) Phillip Institute of Technology in Melbourne Australia 1 Answer Polimi #1 LOCAL ACCESS (news posting/reading, global mail ok) Polytechnic of Milan, Italy Reason for policy: costs? 1 Answer #2 FULL ACCESS 1 Answer [not sure why we have two different reports from the same machine? -rbl] Princeton U FULL ACCESS (for any member of staff, faculty, or student body) 3 Answers Purdue FULL ACCESS 6 Answers Reed College FULL ACCESS computing environment is extremely open, no disk quotas or time limits are used. The only charge is for laserprinting. 1 Answer Rice FULL ACCESS (see below) Must first get a basic account, this gives you local access. Then you must fill out a form requesting global access. This form must be signed by a professor. The form is review and the request is usually granted. [the process is a little less formal than it sounds] Possible reason for process: Rice's large endowment. Also, note that Rice doesn't get any alt.sex* groups due to the article in the Chronicle a while back. 4 Answers RMIT FULL ACCESS (access for all students) Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) 1 Answer RPI FULL ACCESS (for all students, at all levels) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: undergrads, grads, faculty and staff all have equal access. 4 Answers Rutgers U FULL ACCESS 1 Answer San Diego St. FULL ACCESS San Diego State University 1 Answer St Joseph's U FULL ACCESS 1 Answer Stanford U FULL ACCESS (for any student) 3 Answers Stevens Inst. FULL ACCESS / No USENET Stevens Institute of Technology No USENET due to lack of disk space. 1 Answer SUNY Buffalo FULL ACCESS (for all students) 1 Answer SUNY SB FULL ACCESS (for any student) SUNY Stony Brook 1 Answer Syracuse U FULL ACCESS 2 Answers Tampere U FULL ACCESS (but not anonymous access from terminal servers) Tampere University of Technology Finland 1 Answer TU-Berlin FULL ACCESS Technische University at Berlin 2 Answers TU-Wien LOCAL ACCESS (no global mail too) Technische Universitaet Wien Institut fuer technische Informatik Abteilung fuer Softwaretechnologie und Echtzeitsysteme. To prevent "cracking" on the net. Students doing research have global access. 1 Answer TUFTS FULL ACCESS 1 Answer Tulsa U FULL ACCESS 1 Answer U Akron FULL ACCESS (but not from PCs and Mac's) 1 Answer U Arizona FULL ACCESS 1 Answer U Bordeaux LIMITED ACCESS: local mail, global mail, ftp: ok. no usenet University of Bordeaux (France) 1 Answer U Mass FULL ACCESS (cs lab) (boston) 1 Answer U Mass FULL ACCESS (Lowell) was restricted to CS-types, but is now open to everyone. 1 Answer U of Aalborg FULL ACCESS University of Aalborg 1 Answer U of Calgary LOCAL ACCESS (no news posting, no email from mailservers) Limited access due to previous abuse. If student *really* needs access he can try to get access to grad machines. [uses permissions system see file /pub/sysadm/permissions/permissions.tar.Z on cpsc.ucalgary.ca for details] 2 Answers U of Canterbury LOCAL ACCESS (local news posting, no global mail) University of Canterbury (Christchurch, New Zealand) Limits due to slow link to internet. 1 Answer U of Chicago FULL ACCESS (for any student) 3 Answers U of Cologne FULL ACCESS University of Cologne, Germany Institute of Nuclear Physics Student grops get an old and no longer used machine (microvax) to play with (the computer is connected to the net). 1 Answer U of Colorado FULL ACCESS (to all students) (boulder) 1 Answer U of Delaware FULL ACCESS 1 Answer U of Florida FULL ACCESS 2 Answer U of Georgia FULL ACCESS 1 Answer U of Helsinki FULL ACCESS (see below) for studying purposes but not strictly enforced (helsinki.fi domain) 3 Answers U of Houston FULL ACCESS (after signing form saying you know net.policies) 3 Answers U of Idaho FULL ACCESS 1 Answer U of Iowa FULL ACCESS (see below) Per-semester fee for some computer access. Also, there is a student run organization which which gives "free" telnet access to U of I students. 1 Answer U of Jyvaskyla FULL ACCESS University of Jyvaskyla, Finland 1 Answer U of Manitoba FULL ACCESS (although not sure about global telnet) 1 Answer U of Maryland FULL ACCESS (for any student) 3 Answers U of Michigan FULL ACCESS (for any student) 5 Answers U of Milano FULL ACCESS Universita' di Milano (Italy) 1 Answer U of Minnesota FULL ACCESS 1 Answer U of N Iowa FULL ACCESS University of Northern Iowa added 4 months ago, must sign responsibility document. 2 Answers U of Nebraska FULL ACCESS (omaha) 1 Answer U of New Mexico FULL ACCESS (for any student) 1 Answer U of Newcastle LIMITED ACCESS Currently full access (have to ask for global mail), but global ftp/telnet may be removed in the coming academic year (due to bandwidth limits) 1 Answer U of North FULL ACCESS Queensland 1 Answer U of NT FULL ACCESS (for any student) University of North Texas 2 Answers U of Oklahoma FULL ACCESS 1 Answer U of Pacific FULL ACCESS 1 Answer U di Padova LIMITED FULL ACCESS (see below) Universita` di Padova - Italy news posting and global ftp restricted. No IRC or MUD on global telnet. 1 Answer U of Regina FULL ACCESS University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan 1 Answer U of Rochester FULL ACCESS via univ. computing center sun3/280, also some deparmental support. 4 Answers U of Scranton FULL ACCESS 1 Answer U of Toronto LOCAL ACCESS (no news posting, global mail ok) comp.* is only USENET on systems used by CS undergrads. Access is limited due to congeston of network connections with rest of world, although it isn't clear if the access would be allowed if the school had the bandwidth. Can pay for an account on the computing services main system to get full access, but it is expensive. 2 Answers U of Trondheim FULL ACCESS University of Trondheim, Norway. 1 Answer U of Vermont FULL ACCESS (for all students) 1 Answer U of Virginia FULL ACCESS (to all students, at no cost) 2 Answers U of Washington FULL ACCESS (any student can get an account) Campus mainframes have full access. Some departments have varying levels of access. Restricted access to Internet phased out in 1988. Prior to 1988: onsite telnet/ftp and read-only news. 5 Answers U of Waterloo FULL ACCESS (except for global mail/global news posting) Restrictions are usually not enforced. Reason for restriction: typical undergrad doesn't have any academic need to contact anyone else outside of his/her own university. 2 Answers U Penn FULL ACCESS (engineering school students) 1.5MB disk qouta 5 Answers U Texas FULL ACCESS (for any student) (austin) 3 Answers U Wisconsin FULL ACCESS 1 Answer UC Berkeley FULL ACCESS (for any student) conditions like "class accounts should be used only for classes" exsist but are usually not enforced Upper-division students can get an account for $15/semester. 7 Answers UC Davis FULL ACCESS 2 Answers UC Riverside FULL ACCESS 1 Answer UC SantaBarbara FULL ACCESS (must use gateway machine for global telnet/ftp) 1 Answer UC Santa Cruz FULL ACCESS (for any student) 1 Answer UCQ LIMITED ACCESS University of Central Queensland Local mail is provided. Global mail and global ftp are not allow unless it is for a specific project. Reading news is ok, but postings must be local. Local ftp, local telnet, and global telnet are not allowed. Policy is based on AARNET policy and the illegal activities of some students. There are some local mirrors of ftp sites that can be accessed. For the vast majority of students network access is unnecessary and thus a waste of resources. 1 Answer UIUC FULL ACCESS Account limited by cpu+disk quota 2 Answers UNC-A FULL ACCESS University of North Carolina - Asheville USENET via departmental machines 2 Answers UNC-CH FULL ACCESS university of north carolina-chapel hill 1 Answer UNI-BIELEFELD LOCAL ACCESS (news posting, global mail ok) Due to: security and bandwidth limits 1 Answer FULL ACCESS (dept of Math) 1 Answer UNI-ERLANGEN LOCAL ACCESS (usenet post/read, global mail ok) Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nuernberg Global telnet/ftp only for special guys. 1 Answer UNI-SB FULL ACCESS (for any student) Universitaet des Saarlandes D-W-6600 Saarbruecken, Germany main problem would be bandwidth limits 1 Answer UT Knoxville FULL ACCESS 1 Answer UTAS LOCAL ACCESS University of Tasmania at Launceston No global mail (but hard to stop) or news posting (reading ok). No global telnet, global ftp ok only for specific subjects. Policy due to bandwidth considerations and resource allocation. 2 Answers Utrecht U LOCAL ACCESS (posting news, global mail ok) (see below) Utrecht University, the Netherlands Glocal ftp restricted due to 64KB internet line saturation, however, some workstations have access. Local-telnet access to workstations is limited due to students messing up each others X-window displays. Global telnet is limited due to the 64KB line, and some cracking attempts to other systems. The school would like to offer more networking services. 1 Answer UW-Madison FULL ACCESS IF TAKING CS CLASS USING MACHINE 1 Answer UW-Milwaukee FULL ACCESS (any undergrad can get an account) 1 Answer UWA FULL ACCESS (CS 3 and 4th years - need access to unix) University of Western Australia also student run vax on network 1 Answer Victoria Coll. LOCAL ACCESS, global mail and USENET posting ok. Australia 1 Answer Victoria U FULL ACCESS (see below) First and second year students spend most of their time on PCs which are not on the network, but they can apply for an account on the unix boxes. 1 Answer Virginia Tech FULL ACCESS via student run machine... computing center also provides local telnet. SLIP is widespread. 1 Answer Vrije U FULL ACCESS Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 1 Answer Warwick U FULL ACCESS 1 Answer Washington St U FULL ACCESS 1 Answer Widener U FULL ACCESS 1 Answer WPI FULL ACCESS (for any student) Worcester Polytechnic Institute 1 Answer WWU FULL ACCESS (all students) Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington. 1 Answer Yale U FULL ACCESS (standard issue accounts on IBM3090) 1 Answer