Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) Vol. 01, No. 34 [Week ending October 27, 1991 There is a backlog of CAF-news. To catch up, I will be publishing one issue a day all this week. For information on how to receive only the CAF-news abstract, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send acad-freedom caf The words after a number are a short paraphrase of the article, not necessarily my opinion. Notes 1-2 are about policy statements. 1. Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom -- This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion about computers and academic freedom. <1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org> 2. README file for the Computer Policy and Critiques Archive -- This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools. The collection also includes critiques of some of the policies. To get the newest version of the README file, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send other-comp-policies README <1991Oct26.175424.26881@eff.org> Notes 3-7 are about the "yehweh" posting, a violent and sexually explicit story that was posted to the soc.women newsgroup apparently by a student of the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). 3. (UIC sys admin:) Sorry about the posting. I've taken action to prevent such postings in the future. The note was not protected speech because "it can be considered as a generalized form of sexual harassment". <9110221943.AA27573@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> 4. (Addressed to the UIC sys admin:) "[Y]ou overstepped the bounds of your authority when you punished the student for his expression." The speech in the note, although offensive, was Constitutionally protected. "Statements in a free-speech forum such as soc.women [cannot] constitute sexual harassment." Moreover, you are not authorized by your university to decide sexual harassment cases. <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org> 5. (The student from whom's account the note was posted:) "Maybe it was a breakin,a forgery,or I left my terminal unattended, but I DIDN'T POST IT!!!" <9110252158.AA17812@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> 6. (Student at another school:) My legal advisors say that private BBS owners might be responsible for the notes their users post. By analogy, University sys admins might be responsible for their user's postings. I would be willing sue. "It would be lovely if the democratically determined newsgroup charters ..., finally had some teeth." <9110262137.AA21310@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> 7. (Addressed to the previous poster:) "There is a vast difference between a *private* bbs that one may join or refuse to join because of the rules, and a university that has a written policy of allowing the free exchange of ideas." "You decided to read it and you should have stopped when you'd read enuff to know what it is. And then flamed it, and set your followups to alt.flame or /dev/null." A call for newsgroup charters with teeth is a call for net.police. <9110271907.AA24778@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Notes 8-11 are about newsgroup policy. 8. "I see the unmoderated Usenet and Altnet newsgroups as free-speech forums. Their charters state the intended focus of the forum, not the legal boundaries. The penalty for moving too far from the focus, should, in my opinion, be social disapproval, not official punishment." <1991Oct23.210725.19475@eff.org> 9. Postings to the net, like other expressive actions, should only be punished if they cause substantial interference with the rights of others. A few off-topic posts do not constitute substantial interference. Enclosed are the general rules my school has against disruptive and coercive action. <1991Oct24.014633.28623@eff.org> 10. How about on-line disclaimers that reminds users that they may find material in Usenet newsgroups that offends them? Also that the user, not site, is not responsible for what users reads and writes to the net. <1991Oct23.210321.283@ms.uky.edu> 11. A judge has said that 'a steady stream of unwelcome messages over an electronic mail system' can constitute harassment. <9110231905.AA03782@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Notes 12-13: Miscellaneous 12. The Alt.sex.* hierarchy was killed on PSUVM, Penn State's main general purpose computer.. <9110231820.AA03361@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> 13. UCLA's Computer Use Policy could be improved with better privacy protection and the elimination of procedures that allow users to be punished for rule infractions before it is determined that infractions have actually occurred. <199110261528.AA24204@eff.org> - Carl] In this issue: Carl M. Kadie 149 Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Carl M. Kadie 152 README file for Computer Policy and Critiques Archive Barry Grau 23 [soc.women, et al.] yahweh is good posting Carl M. Kadie 117 >yahweh is good posting U53482@uicvm 8 [alt.sex, et al.] I didn't do it. Amy Gorin 56 [alt.acad.freedom.talk, e<>ing reams, lets look at cases) Char Aznabul 59 [soc.women] Re: YAHWEH is<>ing reams, lets look at cases) Carl M. Kadie 37 Official punishment of of<>s (was yahweh is good posting) Carl M. Kadie 75 >off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting) Wes Morgan 45 Online disclaimers? Tim W Smith 17 [misc.legal, et al.] Harassment via Email Gregory G Nagy 11 [alt.sex, et al.] Re: alt.sex.* make NBC News Carl M. Kadie 155 [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: Ucla's Use Policies 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: Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Message-ID: <1991Oct26.210722.29271@eff.org> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 21:07:22 GMT This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion about computers and academic freedom. It is made up of two kinds of statements. The first, labeled as principles, are premises. The second, labeled as interpretations, are conclusions drawn from the principles. The two kinds of statements can be thought of as axioms and theorems. An axiom (principle) is most likely to be criticized for being unreasonable. A theorem (interpretation) is mostly likely to be criticized for not following from the principles. Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to CAF-talk). On the documents referenced are available on-line. Access information is at the end of this note. - Carl ------------------------------------------- I. General Principle: The principles of academic freedom apply to academic computer systems. Computer polices should be consistent with general university codes and widely accepted statements on academic freedom such as the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students. II. Policy Formulation Interpretation: "The institution has an obligation to clarify those standards of behavior which it considers essential to its educational mission and its community life. These general behavioral expectations and the resultant specific regulations should represent a reasonable regulation of [user] conduct, but the [user] should be as free as possible from imposed limitations that have no direct relevance to his education. Offenses should be as clearly defined as possible and interpreted in a manner consistent with the aforementioned principles of relevance and reasonableness. Disciplinary proceedings should be instituted only for violations of standards of conduct formulated with significant [user] participation and published in advance through such means as a [user] handbook or a generally available body of institutional regulations." [Joint Statement] II. Student and Faculty Discipline Principle: Suspension or expulsion from a computer is a serious penalty. Users facing these penalties should be given due process protection similar to that given to those facing other serious penalties such as a formal disciplinary warning, a failing grade for cheating, or suspension from class. Interpretation: "Pending action on the charges, the status of a [user] should not be altered, or his [or her] right to be present on the campus and to attend classes [and use computers] suspended, except for reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and well being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students, faculty, or university property." [Joint Statement] III. Privacy Principle: Personal files on university's computers (for example, files in a user's home directory) should have the same privacy protection as personal files in university-assigned space in an office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate student's desk). Private communications via computer should have the same protections as private communications via telephone. IV. Computer Expression Interpretation: "Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and independent search for truth." [Joint Statement] Principle: The principles of intellectual freedom developed by libraries should be applied to the administration of information material on computers. These principles are explained in such American Library Association documents as the Library Bill of Rights, the Freedom to Read Statement, and the Intellectual Freedom Statement. Interpretation: Computer sites that offer newsgroups should select newsgroups the way that traditional libraries select magazines and books. Interpretation: "Every [academic computer] system should have a comprehensive policy on the selection of [information] materials." [ALA Workbook for Selection Policy Writing] Interpretation: "Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval" [Article 2, Library Bill of Rights]. Principle: The principles of academic freedom applicable to student and faculty publication in traditional media, apply to student and faculty publication in computer media. Interpretation: An article or note posted by a student to a newsgroup is a student publication. Interpretation: "Student publications [and the publications of other users] are a valuable aid in establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and responsible discussion and of intellectual exploration on the campus. They are a means of bringing [...] concerns to the attention of the faculty and the institutional authorities and of formulating [...] opinion on various issues on the campus and in the world at large." [Joint Statement] Interpretation: "The institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a device of censorship." "[User publications] should be free of censorship and advance approval of copy ..." [Joint Statement] Interpretation: "All university published and financed [user] publications should explicitly state [...] that the opinions there expressed are not necessarily those of the college, university, or student body. [Joint Statement] ----------------------- References Documents may be accessed via ftp (see the first line after the document title). They may also be accessed via email. Send email to archive-server@eff.org. In the body of your note include the second line after the document title. Joint Statement on Rights and Freedom of Students ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.rights send acad-freedom student.rights Library Bill of Rights ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/bill-of-rights.ala send library-policies bill-of-rights.ala Freedom to Read Statement ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/freedom-to-read.ala send library-policies freedom-to-read.ala Intellectual Freedom Statement ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/library/int-freedom.ala send library-policies int-freedom.ala CAF Archive's README file ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/README send acad-freedom README -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1571 comp.admin.policy:1047 soc.college:1219 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: README file for Computer Policy and Critiques Archive Message-ID: <1991Oct26.175424.26881@eff.org> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1991 17:54:24 GMT ================= README ----------------- Computer Policy and Critiques Archive [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive [part of the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) Archive]] This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools. The collection also includes critiques of some of the policies. The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/policies". For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send other-comp-policies where is a list of the files that you want. File README is a detailed description of the items in the directory. For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains additional policies (but not critiques). ================= acs.ohio-state.edu.critique ----------------- Critique of "Policy on Abuse of Computers and Networks for The Office of Academic Computing at The Ohio State University" ================= acs.ohio-state.edu ----------------- Policy on Abuse of Computers and Networks for The Office of Academic Computing at The Ohio State University (Critiqued) ================= bostonu.edu.critique ----------------- Critique of the ethics policy for Boston University Information Technology ================= bostonu.edu ----------------- Ethics policy for Boston University Information Technology (Critiqued) ================= cc.columbia.edu ----------------- The old policy for Columbia University's Center for Computing Activities. They are working on a new policy. ================= cis.ohio-state.edu.critique ----------------- Critique for the appropriate use, mail (and netnews), disk, and printer policy for the computers labs of OSU's Computer and Information Science Department ================= cis.ohio-state.edu ----------------- The appropriate use, mail (and netnews), disk, and printer policy for the computers labs of OSU's Computer and Information Science Department (Critiqued) ================= cleveland.freenet.edu.critique ----------------- Critique of the Cleveland Freenet's "adult netnews" policy. ================= cleveland.freenet.edu ----------------- ~From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) [...] 'In light of the long discussion about "adult" netnews material, I thought it informative to let you know how the Cleveland Freenet (at Case Western Reserve University) is handling the situation. The following is the new policy for access to "adult" discussion groups.' [...] (Critiqued) ================= cmich.edu.critique ----------------- Critique of "Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Computing Services At Central Michigan University (And Were Afraid To Ask)" ================= 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. (Critiqued) ================= dal.ca ----------------- Guide to responsible computing at Dalhousie University (in Halifax, NS, Canada) ================= ncsa.uiuc.edu.critique ----------------- Critique of the email policy for the National Center for Supercomputer Applications, a department of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ================= ncsa.uiuc.edu ----------------- Email policy for the National Center for Supercomputer Applications, a department of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Critiqued) ================= pitt.edu ----------------- The University of Pittsburgh Guidelines for Ethical Use from "User's Guide to Academic Computing" and Computer Access and Use policy ================= seas.ucla.edu.critique ----------------- Critique of computer policy for UCLA's SEASnet ================= seas.ucla.edu ----------------- Computer policy for UCLA's SEASnet (Critiqued) ================= 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 Sat Oct 26 13:51:48 EDT 1991 -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: Barry Grau Date: Monday, 21 Oct 1991 16:22:01 CDT Subject: [soc.women, et al.] yahweh is good posting Message-ID: <9110221943.AA27573@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> I'm sorry about the "yahweh is good posting". I have discussed the posting with its author, explained to him why it was inappropriate for him to post it where he did, taken action to prevent his posting such articles in the short term and informed him that if he continues we will take longer term action. While I support freedom of speech, an individual's right to use his own resources to publish pornography and individuals' rights to read pornography, using University resources to publish pornography in a forum in which it can be considered as a generalized form of sexual harrassment is certainly not a protected freedom of speech. Barry Grau Interim Manager of User Services Computer Center Univ of Illinois - Chicago U42054@UICVM - Bitnet U42054@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU - Internet 312/996-6798 - Phone 312/996-6834 - FAX From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: yahweh is good posting Message-ID: <1991Oct22.211259.5178@eff.org> Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.women,alt.sex,alt.censorship References: <9110221943.AA27573@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 21:12:59 GMT Mr. Grau, I realize that you received many complaints about the yahwey article. While, I do not support the ideas in the article, but I do support the right of the author to post it. I think you overstepped the bounds of your authority when you punished the student for his expression. You write: >I'm sorry about the "yahweh is good posting". I have discussed the posting >with its author, explained to him why it was inappropriate for him to post >it where he did, taken action to prevent his posting such articles in the >short term and informed him that if he continues we will take longer term >action. >While I support freedom of speech, an individual's right to use his own >resources to publish pornography and individuals' rights to read pornography, >using University resources to publish pornography in a forum in which it >can be considered as a generalized form of sexual harrassment is certainly >not a protected freedom of speech. Please review your contractual and Constitutional obligations as an agent of the University. You are contractually constrained by your "Code on Campus Affairs". I don't know exactly what yours says, but at the Urbana campus, where I am a student, it says: "STATEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS I. Preamble A student at the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign campus is a member of the University community of which all members have at least the rights and responsibilities common to all citizens, free from institutional censorship;" ... "III. Campus Expression A. Discussion and expression of all views is permitted within the University subject only to requirements for the maintenance of order. [...] B. Members and organizations in the University community may invite and hear any persons of their own choosing, subject only to reasonable requirements on time, place, and manner for use of University facilities. C. The campus press and media are to be free of censorship. The editors and managers shall not be arbitrarily suspended because of student, faculty, administration, alumni, or community disapproval of editorial policy or content." ... "VI. Student Affairs [...] B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression 1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and to discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions publicly and privately. [...] 2. Students should be allowed to invite and hear any person of their own choosing. [...] The University's control of campus facilities should not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed either by the sponsoring group or the institution." Constiutionally, you are also constrained by the First (and 14th) Amendments. The University's newsgroup facility (like the student newspaper) is a "limited public forum" under the Supreme Court' Public-Forum Doctrine (alt.sex and soc.women are limited in the sense that only people with computer accounts can access it.) Here are is the law for limited public forums: [Quotes are from the decision "San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986)". Quotes within quotes are from the Supreme Court.] '"[C]ontent-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest."' "Having established a limited public forum [the school] cannot, absent a compelling governmental interest, exclude speech otherwise within the boundaries of the forum ...." "Thus the identical broad free speech rights attach to [traditional] and [limited] 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." For more details see the "Computers and Academic Freedom News" (vol. 1, no. 25). It is available via anonymous ftp it from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/news/cafn01n25. Or send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send caf-news cafn01n25 Finally, concerning the justification that you are enforcing University rules against sexual harassment. First, I do not think that statements in a free-speech forum such as soc.women can constitute sexual harassment. I note that the Supreme Court overturned such campus speech restrictions at the Univerisity of Michigan. Second, if the rules for the Chicago campus are anything like the rules for the Urbana-Champaign campus, you have no authority to punish students who sexually harass. Such punishment can occur only after a due process as spelled out in documents such as "Administrative Procedures for Complaints and Grievances of Discrimination and of Sexual Harassment -- Students" Please withdraw your punishment and your threat of further punishments. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: U53482@uicvm.uic.edu Subject: [alt.sex, et al.] I didn't do it. Date: 24 Oct 91 23:47:14 GMT Message-ID: <9110252158.AA17812@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Sorry about the posting, but my subject line says it all. I did NOT post that article. I got off work after 10:00, (left school @ 3:30 or thereabouts) and got home around 11:00. I ate dinner, took a shower, went to bed, got up, went to school, and found out that my account was suspended because I sent to you! Maybe it was a breakin,a forgery,or I left my terminal unattended, but I DIDN'T POST IT!!! So don't flame me no more. Also, I don't know why my account was opened, could someone please tell me why? From: gorin@media.mit.edu (Amy Gorin) Subject: [alt.acad.freedom.talk, et al.] Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases) Message-ID: <9110262137.AA21310@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 26 Oct 91 01:43:23 GMT In article <4926@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes: >Stacy Johnson writes >+ That's fine, but the KKK and the Nazi Party do not seize African >+ American and Jewish newsletters, print their stories in them anonymously, >+ and then distribute them to the AA and Jewish readers. And I would >+ think they would be sued if they did. > >Mixing apples and oranges is fine if you're mixing fruit juices. >However, this makes no sense to me at all. Perhaps you can explain >to me how soc.women is even remotely similar to a newsletter. I >can see making that analogy with soc.feminisim or any other >moderated newsgroup, but an *unmoderated* newsgroup??? According to my legal advisors, there are two ways in which the courts have handled questions like this---1 - by applying or extending laws regarding private mail between individuals (in which case the sysadmin is considered the postmaster), and 2 - by applying the laws regarding publications (in which case the sysadmin is considered the publisher). These cases have been largely in regards private bbs's. However, sysops HAVE been sued successfully, and they do have the right to control the content of postings. Universities are a different type of legal entity, but e-mail laws have been applied, and there is no reason to think publication laws wouldn't be. People have decried the pulling of an account without due process as censorship. When I offered to provide due process they said it would never fly. I'm not sure why they didn't just say that in first place. In spite of the reams of legal paperwork posted to the net in the last few days, I don't think we are going to be able to determine the legality of the actions without a test case. As I have said before, I'm willing to file one. Leave it to the courts to decide. Personally, to the people who use the kill-file arguement: Readers of soc.women had already used News technology to choose the topics they wished to see---by subscribing to soc.women and not alt.evil. There was no indication in the header of the article that its topic would be offensive, and, (unless SHe has a better ai parser than state-of-the-art), the only way a reader of soc.women would have known not to read that article was to read it. The author used the News system to deliberately target readers who were most likely to find the article offensive, just as much as someone who parses a kill-file and then sends its owner articles on the subjects listed there. Please don't respond by posting excerpts from policy statements. If you wish to provide full xerox copies to my lawyer, write me for an address. It would be lovely if the democratically determined newsgroup charters (listed in news.announce-newusers, last time I checked), finally had some teeth. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There's always 'hang around the fort' Indians" - Native American protester at Atlanta Braves game, asked about Indians who manufacture souveneir tomahawks. From: stricher@masig3.ocean.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) Subject: [soc.women] Re: YAHWEH is good! (instead of quoting reams, lets look at cases) Message-ID: <9110271907.AA24778@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 26 Oct 91 17:43:23 GMT Amy Gorin writes + According to my legal advisors, there are two ways in which the courts have + handled questions like this---1 - by applying or extending laws regarding + private mail between individuals (in which case the sysadmin is considered + the postmaster), and 2 - by applying the laws regarding publications (in + which case the sysadmin is considered the publisher). These cases have + been largely in regards private bbs's. However, sysops HAVE been sued + successfully, and they do have the right to control the content of postings. + Universities are a different type of legal entity, but e-mail laws have been + applied, and there is no reason to think publication laws wouldn't be. There is a vast difference between a *private* bbs that one may join or refuse to join because of the rules, and a univeristy that has a written policy of allowing the free exchange of ideas. Even if they are totally repugnent. Applying publication laws would appear to be stretching the imagination. For instance, *who* publishes soc.women? I mean, when I go out and print up 5000 copies of "Char's guide to FSU's women", it's my name on the beast, my money in the hole. Netnews falls between the two, and at the moment, IMHO, falls between the cracks. It isn't *private* email and it isn't published (by a single entity) either. + legality of the actions without a test case. As I have said before, + I'm willing to file one. Leave it to the courts to decide. Oh, well, so much for netnews... + Personally, to the people who use the kill-file arguement: Readers of + soc.women had already used News technology to choose the topics they wished + to see---by subscribing to soc.women and not alt.evil. There was no + indication in the header of the article that its topic would be offensive, + and, (unless SHe has a better ai parser than state-of-the-art), the only + way a reader of soc.women would have known not to read that article was + to read it. The author used the News system to deliberately target readers + who were most likely to find the article offensive, just as much as someone + who parses a kill-file and then sends its owner articles on the subjects + listed there. *chortle*chortle*chortle* This is rich! You were forced to read the *whole* thing? *smirk* Amy, I never saw the original article! Why? I saw "Yahweh" and assumed it was a religious posting. I don't read those outside of .christian groups. I read enuff to know I didn't want to keep reading it. You decided to read it and you should have stopped when you'd read enuff to know what it is. And then flamed it, and set your followups to alt.flame or /dev/null. + It would be lovely if the democratically determined newsgroup charters + (listed in news.announce-newusers, last time I checked), finally had + some teeth. Look out folks, here come the net.police. Note the followup. Char - the price one pays for having the government insure your saftey at all times is your freedom. From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Official punishment of off-topic posts (was yahweh is good posting) Message-ID: <1991Oct23.210725.19475@eff.org> References: <1991Oct23.182731.17656@eng.umd.edu> <9110231918.AA20269@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 21:07:25 GMT Aydin Eduer raises an important question: What can/should university sys admins do to encourage on-topic posts. [I'll address other issues in Aydin Eduer's note, in a second article.] edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes: >The user got his wrist slapped not because of the content but where the >content was placed. If the content had been placed in an appropriate >place, no one would even have noticed. It would have been no "better" to >post a question about sendmail in soc.women. It is outside the scope >of the limited public forum. And yes, I do send mail to users who make >this type of mistake. >You and Carl have both said that unmoderated groups are public forums. >What neither of you have realized is that even public forums have rules. >No, there are no net-police to arrest you for disturbing the peace, no, >there are no jails to put you in for creating a public nuisance, but >make no mistake that there are rules agreed to by consensus and there >are and should be consequences for violating this social contract. I see the unmoderated Usenet and Altnet newsgroups as free-speech forums. Their charters state the intended focus of the forum, not the legal boundaries. The penalty for moving too far from the focus, should, in my opinion, be social disapproval, not official punishment. Authors should have the final word on which free-speech forum(s) they post to. The university should not be in the business of labeling articles with the officially appropriate newsgroups. Such labeling is a form of censorship. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: off-topic notes (was yahweh is good posting) Message-ID: <1991Oct24.014633.28623@eff.org> References: <1991Oct23.233034.24688@eff.org> <9110240013.AA20625@sentinel.CES.CWRU.Edu> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 01:46:33 GMT edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes: [...] >Okay, we have set a lower bound of 1 article and an upper bound of >100K/5 minutes as disruptive enough to "censor" a user. Now try to >write a fair regulation.... [...] The U. of Illinois at UC has rules against disruptive and coercive action. (I think these are Trustee's rules. If so, they apply at U. of Illinois at Chicago, too.) The standard is substantial interference with the rights of others. Penalties can be imposed after (and only after) a disciplinary process. If a user does not post many more notes than other users and if his or her posts can be killed with kill files, I do not think that off-topic posts constitute substantial interference with the rights of others. Here are the potentially relevant parts of the rules: ---start quote--- Conduct for which students are subject to discipline or expulsion include, without limitation, knowingly engaging in disruptive or coercive action. Disruptive or coercive action include the following: (1) Participation in a disruptive or coercive demonstration. A demonstration is disruptive or coercive if it substantially impedes University operations, or substantially interferes with the rights of others, or takes place on premises or at times where students are not authorized to be. There is no requirement that University authorities order students to cease participation in a disruptive or coercive demonstration. [... (2) use of force or violence ...] (3) Unauthorized entry to or use of property or facilities owned or controlled by the University. [... (4) physical abuse ...] [... (5) endangering the safety or health of others ...] [... (6) Theft and vandalism ...] (7) Failure to comply with direction of a member or agent of the University acting in the performance of her or his duty in connection with a potential or actual disorder. (8) Any conduct which substantially threatens or interferes with the maintainence of appropriate order and discipline in the operation of the University, or any conduct on University property or in connection with a University activity which invades the rights of others. Without excluding other situation, examples include shouting, noisemaking, obstruction and other disruptive actions designed or intended to interfere with or prevent meetings, assemblies, classes or other scheduled or routine University operations or activities. (9) Inciting, aiding, or encouraging others to engage in a disruptive or coercive action. When, through the disciplinary process, a student is found to have knowingly engage in a disruptive or coercive action, as above defined, the penalty will be dismissal or, upon a finding that substantial mitigating circumstances exist, suspended dismissal or other sanctions or coercive actions. [....] -----end quote--- -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Subject: Online disclaimers? Message-ID: <1991Oct23.210321.283@ms.uky.edu> Date: 23 Oct 91 21:03:21 GMT Article-I.D.: ms.1991Oct23.210321.283 We've discussed some ramifications, both legal and ethical, of carrying Usenet news. Many people have spoken of "news contracts", documents signed by each Usenet participant at a given site which would explain the obligations incurred (or not incurred) by both the user and the site itself. Since most of us don't really want to float more paperwork into the bureaucratic morass, what about an online disclaimer? I was thinking about something like this, which would be displayed every time the news reading/posting software is invoked: ----------------sample online disclaimer-------------------- This program accesses Usenet, a worldwide news and information system. This system is one of tens of thousands participating in Usenet. Usenet consists of discussion areas, or "newsgroups", covering a wide range of topics. You will find newsgroups for almost every topic you can name. Each newsgroup has participants from around the world. Sometimes, you may find material in Usenet newsgroups that offends you. That is a personal matter, and this site is not responsible in any way for the material you read here. Your contributions to Usenet are your own responsibility. This site assumes no resposibility for the material you post. If you post any information that violates the law, you are responsible; this site will not support you. This site will not prevent you from reading Usenet, nor will it prevent you from contributing. The responsibility is yours. By executing this program and participating in Usenet, you acknowledge that you bear the responsibility for your actions. ----------------------end online disclaimer-------------------------- Would something such as this help defuse the "outraged user" syndrome, at least from an administrator's viewpoint? -- 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 From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) Subject: [misc.legal, et al.] Harassment via Email Message-ID: <9110231905.AA03782@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 23 Oct 91 14:15:52 GMT replaced with "..." in an attempt to not be too blatent about copyright violations...): "A Seattle judge has agreed that ...Bill Gates has been the victim of harassment. ...In what may be one of the first cases of high-tech harassment, a former Microsoft saleswoman Monday was ordered to stay from Microsoft -- and Gates -- both physically and electronically. Microsoft said Joan Brewer had been sending Gates a steady stream of unwelcome messages over an electronic mail system. Brewer earlier had claimed that she...was the victim of harassment,...EEOC dismissed her complaint. Now King County District Judge William Roarty has told Brewer any contact she makes with Microsoft must be through the company's legal department." Tim Smith From: nagy@moria.endor.cs.psu.edu (Gregory G Nagy) Subject: [alt.sex, et al.] Re: alt.sex.* make NBC News Message-ID: <9110231820.AA03361@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 07:43:36 GMT The Alt.sex.* heirarchy was killed on PSUVM, Penn State's main general purpose computer. (The CS computers still get it, obviously :) It was said that they were removed as a cost-cutting measure but may also be due to the fact of certain postings originating from that machine (eg The Jim Whitehead and BIFF posts.) -- Greg Nagy "...Barq's doesn't bite.. Barq's HAS nagy@endor.cs.psu.edu bite!" -Barq's ad ggn100@psuvm.psu.edu From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Re: Ucla's Use Policies Message-ID: <199110261528.AA24204@eff.org> Sender: kadie Date: 26 Oct 91 07:28:43 GMT Approved: usenet@eff.org It seems like a pretty good policy. I especially like that it covers both users and sys admins. Also, it lays out clear rules and disciplinary procedures. And, it acknowledges the user's privacy. I think it could be improved (perhaps with the participation of users) by clarifying the prohibition against noncommercial personal use. Also, procedure by which a sys admin is authorized to search user files should be made clear and it should be made consistent with the University's general search procedures (or its telephone search procedures). Finally, users should not be punished for rule infractions until and unless it is determined such infractions have occurred. I will discuss each of these points in turn. 1. The policy says: >* Use of SEASnet's Computing Facilities > Use of SEASnet's computing facilities, including > hardware, software, and networks is restricted to the > purposes for which SEASnet accounts are assigned. These > uses are limited to research and educational purposes. > Any personal or commercial use of SEASnet equipment is > prohibited. But then: > * Game Playing > Various games are available on the system. > however, you must not play games when other > users need a terminal for any other activity. If > you are playing games, you must log out whenever > users are waiting, and offer them your terminal. > it is not ethical or polite to stay logged in > until the person waiting asks you to log out, or > to expect a waiting user to wait for you to > finish playing. Isn't game playing an example of personal use? Isn't much email use personal? If the members of a student organization (say, the sailing club) keep the the club roster on-line, isn't that a personal use? How about if someone accesses the library computer to find a book on bicycle repair? The policy could be improved by applying the "game policy" to all noncommercial personal use. 2. The policy says: > In very unusual circumstances when system >response, integrity or security is threatened, as outlined >above, a system administrator is authorized to access files and >information necessary to find and resolve the situation. And: >1.5.4. Consequences of Misuse of Computing Privileges > Abuse of computing privileges is subject to disciplinary >action. If system administrators of SEASnet have strong evidence >of misuse of computing resources, and if that evidence points to >the computing activities or the computer files of an individual, >they have the obligation to pursue any or all of the following >steps to protect the user community: ... > * Inspect the user's files, diskettes, and/or > tapes. System administrators must be certain that the > trail of evidence leads to the user's computing > activities or computing files before inspecting > the user's files. Faculty and student files on university's computers should have the same privacy protection as personal files in university-assigned space in an office or dormitory space (for example, files in a graduate student's desk). I don't know what the exact rules are at UCLA, but the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, the main statement of academic freedom for students says: "B. Investigation of Student Conduct 1. Except under extreme emergency circumstances, premises occupied by students and the personal possessions of students should not be searched unless appropriate authorization has been obtained. For premises such as residence halls controlled by the institution, an appropriate and responsible authority should be designated to whom application should be made before a search is conducted. The application should specify the reasons for he search and the objects or information sought. The student should be present, if possible, during the search. For premises not controlled by the institution, the ordinary requirements for lawful search should be followed." [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.rights] The policy could be improved by making the computer search procedure consistent the University's general search procedure. This will likely mean having sys admins get search authorization from a higher authority. 3. The policy also authorizes sys admins to: > * Suspend or restrict the user's computing > privileges during the investigation. A user may > appeal such a suspension or restriction and > petition for reinstatement of computing > privileges through the SEAS Associate Dean of > Student Affairs or the SEAS Associate Dean of > Computing. This is inconsistent with the principle of innocent until found guilty. It is most likely inconsistent with the general policies of UCLA. The Joint Statement says: "C. Status of Student Pending Final Action Pending action on the charges, the status of a student should not be altered, or his right to be present on the campus and to attend classes suspended, except for reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and well being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students, faculty, or university property." The policy could be improved by authorizing summary computer suspension only "for reasons relating to the safety of ... university property." Perhaps, such computer suspensions should be authorized by a higher authority. I hope the UCLA community will work together to improve the policy. I hope faculty and student users are given a chance to participate in policy making. As the Joint Statement says: "The responsibility to secure and to respect general conditions conductive to the freedom to learn is shared by all members of the academic community. Each college and university has a duty to develop policies and procedures which provide and safeguard this freedom. Such policies a procedures should be developed at each institution within the framework of general standards and with the broadest possible participation of the members of the academic community." RESOURCES Every University has a Student Code that spells out the University's general policies. This Code is not just a document; it is a legal contract between students and the University. New policies must be consistent with the Code. The Computers and Academic Freedom Archive is available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org. It is in directory pub/academic. The archive is also available via email. For information on email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines "help" and "index". The Computers and Academic Freedom on-line discussion is available as newsgroups alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news. It is also available in mailing list form. For information on the mailing list, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send acad-freedom caf - Carl Kadie