Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 01, No. 38 [Week ending November 17, 1991] ========================== KEY ================================ The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. =============================================================== Notes 1-2 are about an article in the University of Illinois at C-U's student newspaper. The article quoted a Computing Service Organization sys admin as saying "if someone is caught using language that would be vulgar or rude to a 'reasonable person,' the University steps in.". 1. (A student at U. of Illinois (me, in fact):) "I was very surprised to read this. I was under the impression the the University of Illinois was free of speech restrictions (except for restrictions on harassment)." Enclosed are excerpts from University code. 2. The University sys admin says he was misquoted by the newspaper. <1991Nov14.054421.24194@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Notes 3-4 are about speech restrictions at Iowa State University. 3. A sys admin at Iowa State says that they reprimanded a user for saying, in effect, that someone should be dead. The user should not have been punished. Rudeness is not a crime. Rude speech is generally protected. 4. Iowa State University policy prohibits the sending of "rude" material. This policy is very likely infringes on Constitutionally-protected rights. References are enclosed. <1991Nov14.203127.16256@eff.org> Notes 5-6 are about Steven Brack and Ohio State University. 5. The Joint Statement says that the procedure for student appeals 'should be clearly formulated and communicated in advance.' Academic Computing Services not only doesn't seem to notify users of their right to appeal; it doesn't seem to recognize their right to appeal. <1991Nov13.142722.13085@eff.org> 6. (Steven Brack:) "As far as I know, you can't be dismissed for being a pain in the ass. What OSU did was to overreact to three or four minor incidents." Enclosed is more information about what I did. <1991Nov13.214531.2899@eff.org> Note 7 is about Rice University's requirement that users obtain permission before sending email or posting notes off-campus. 7. (University admin:) "The University wants some reasonable acknowledgment that a user ... understands the responsibilities they have as a user of the networks." The policy was created after a student threatened to sue Rice for revoking his access. (Access was revoked after someone threatened to sue Rice and the student over email that the student sent.) <9111122320.AA07027@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Notes 8-9 are about the law. 8. According to a wire service report, a commercial BBS has dropped all screening/censoring (including screening of off-topic notes) because it feels that this will reduce its liability. <1991Nov13.144642.13768@eff.org> 9. According to a newspaper story, a U.S. District Judge has told Alabama A&M that it's students (allegedly involved in a fight) 'must be informed of specific charges against them and given the names of those who are to testify against them.' <1991Nov15.212358.28314@eff.org> Notes 10-11 are about system administration. 10. (A user:) "If the users software interferes with the running of the lab, he/she is warned about it, & continues to do it, then your solution [ordering the user to stop] seems the only one available." <9111152223.AA19536@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> 11. (A sys admin:) Enclosed are three steps that would improved user/sys admin communications. One of the steps is to reduce the user-admin ratio at large sites. <9A03910890421012@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Notes 12-13 are about policy making. 12. Instead of a list of Acceptable Use polices, we should have a list of Unacceptable uses. I am appalled by the idea that I must beg permission for anything not on the list of Acceptable Uses. <9111162029.AA27328@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> 13. (The creator of first "finger" service:) "A missing feature in finger is anonymity for those who wish it." I didn't think do add it. <1991Nov15.221601.2527@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> - Carl] In this issue: Carl M. Kadie 80 >Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited) Smiley 35 > Carl M. Kadie 28 > Carl M. Kadie 144 Iowa State speech restric<>as Re: Watch What You Post!!!) Carl M. Kadie 47 >Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened? Brack 108 > Joseph Watters 129 [comp.admin.policy] Re: R<> University Computing Policies Carl M. Kadie 21 A Commercial BBS drops screening/censoring Carl M. Kadie 16 Due process at Alabana A&M Brack 187 >[comp.admin.policy] Re: R<>ack Expulsion. What Happened? Sanjay Kapur 33 User/admin communication. Vincent Fox 70 [comp.org.eff.talk] "Acce<>s. Why does everyone want one? Les Earnest 9 >[comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Finger & Liberty 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@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited) Message-ID: Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager)) References: <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 19:10:01 GMT In <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> trimble@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu (Chris Trimble) writes: [...] >(All Quotes taken from the Daily Illini - Tues. Nov. 12, 1991 - p. 3) [...] >UofI sysadmin BOB FOERTSCH repsponds (which is paraphrased by the Daily Illini > - not a DIRECT quote except for 'reasonable person') >: "if someone is caught using language that would be vulgar or rude to > a 'reasonable person,' the University steps in.". [...] I was very surprised to read this. I was under the impression the the University of Illinois was free of speech restrictions (except for restrictions on harassment). Speech restrictions were struck down at the University of Michigan and more recently at the University of Wisconsin.) It was my impression that the policy of the University of Illinois, as expressed in the _Code on Campus Affairs and Regulations Applying to All Students_, was that students and faculty members have freedom of expression and that they speak for themselves, not University. Has the University's _Statement on Individual Rights_ been appended so that it no longer applies to speech and publication via computer media? Here are excepts from the University Code (1985 edition): "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." - Carl p.s. The text of the U. of Michigan and U. of Wisconsin decisions are available via anonymous ftp as ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin Also of possible interest: ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/README ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/README -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From: jal41820@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Smiley) Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited) Message-ID: <1991Nov14.054421.24194@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) References: <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov13.214812.2699@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 05:44:21 GMT lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) writes: :)kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: :)>In <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> :)>trimble@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu (Chris Trimble) writes: :)>[...] :)>>(All Quotes taken from the Daily Illini - Tues. Nov. 12, 1991 - p. 3) :)>[...] :)>>UofI sysadmin BOB FOERTSCH repsponds (which is paraphrased by the Daily Illini :)>> - not a DIRECT quote except for 'reasonable person') :)>>: "if someone is caught using language that would be vulgar or rude to :)>> a 'reasonable person,' the University steps in.". :)>[...] :)>I was very surprised to read this. I was under the impression the the :)>University of Illinois was free of speech restrictions (except for :)>restrictions on harassment). :)Bob indicated to me the other day that he had been misquoted in the :)DI several times. You should wait to hear his side on this. What? The DI misquoted someone? :) Actually, for curiosity sake, I would be very interested in hearing Bob's position on this. -Josh Laff :) -- _______________________________________________________________________________ | Josh Laff: e-mail to: | Help! The sky is falling! | smiley@uiuc.edu | # # |_________________________| _ _ Oh... wait... no... I'm tipping over | (217) 356-0149 | |#\_____/#| backwards. |________________| \#######/ ------------------------------ From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Watch What You Post!!! (1984 Revisited) Message-ID: Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager)) References: <1991Nov12.164511.8764@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov12.182158.913@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Nov13.123034.3146@news.iastate.edu> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:56:27 GMT In <1991Nov13.123034.3146@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes: [...] >Here, we have had one incident where a student's postings were considered >inappropriate (for lack of a better word). He was quite critical of the >head of a computer company, which was fine until he said (paraphrasing here) >"he should be dead". This caused us to receive a large amount of mail (some >of which I would consider worse than the original posting in question!). >We turned his account off (we have found this the only way to get people >to come see us), asked him to be more prudent in the future and suggested >that he post an apology (which he did), turned his account back on, and >as far as I know, have heard nary a complaint. [...] You should not have punished him. Rudeness is not a crime. (I'm paraphrasing from an ACLU handbook on teacher's legal rights) Generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by the First Amendment [or Academic Freedom -cmk], does not lose that protection because its tone is sharp. Discussions will not always be models of decorum. A court observed that "often those with the power to appoint will be on one side of a controversial issue and find it convenient to use their opponent's momentary stridency as a pretext to squelch them. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Iowa State speech restrictions (was Re: Watch What You Post!!!) Message-ID: <1991Nov14.203127.16256@eff.org> References: <1991Nov14.124028.8711@news.iastate.edu> <1991Nov14.162822.8549@eff.org> <1991Nov14.175122.7291@news.iastate.edu> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 20:31:27 GMT john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes: [...] >I don't consider myself an offical/agent of anything, I just work here, >I don't make any policy. This may apply. It is from A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers: "Teacher As Agent of Institution When a teacher is acting within the scope of his or her employment, a teacher generally is viewed as the agent of the institution. A teacher's acts, then, are considered to be the acts of the institution. Thus, a teacher's acts can form the basis for liability of the institution." >Here is a section of the University policy on >ethical use of computers: > # Sending rude, obscene or harassing material via any electronic mail > or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden. Also disallowed > are random mailings and any message of commercial or political > nature. >Interesting how the very word you used, "rude", is in there. Is it an >arbitrary rule? Perhaps; seems somewhat vague to me. Had I written it, >it would have been different, but maybe that's why they didn't ask my >opinion on it... [...] How was this policy created? What is its official status? By what authority does a state university prohibit rude speech? Does the university generally prohibit rude speech or is rude speech only prohibited on campus computer media? Does it apply to both faculty and students? Here is a reading list of on-line material about freedom-of-expression law a public universities. Everything is available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law OR by email. Send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send caf-law - Carl ================= constraints.constitutional ================= Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D. Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the constitutional constraints on public universities including the requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, specific rules. ================= doe-v-u-of-michigan ================= This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too broad and too vague. ================= hustler-magazine-v-falwell ================= Summary from _The First Amendment Book_ by Robert J. Wagmam, p. 157. The publisher of a cartoon parody, already found not to be libelous, could not be punished for the emotional distress the cartoon may have caused. The Court wrote: "in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment." ================= perry-v-perry ================= Comments from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of _Teachers_. It says that campus mail systems (and other school facilities) can be limited public forums. (Perry v. Perry was about an interschool mail system. It was one of the cases that defined the Public Forum Doctrine.) ================= rust-v-sullivan ================= The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be allowed. ================= san-diego-committee-v-gov-bd ================= Excerpts from San Diego Committee v. Governing Bd., 790 F.2d 1471 (1986). A decision by an appellate court that applied the Supreme Court's Public Forum Doctrine. ================= stanley-v-magrath ================= Comments from _Public Schools Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ 2nd Ed. by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe, published in 1987 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc. It says, in part, "[a]lthough 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." ================= student-publications.control ================= Comments from _School Law: Teachers' and Students' Rights_ by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe. It says, in part, "school authorities cannot withdraw support from a student publication simply because of displeasure with the content" and "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". ================= student-publications.libel ================= McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe on what to do about libel in student publications. ================= student-publications.sharp ================= A paraphrase from an ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_. It says that generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by the First Amendment, does not lose that protection because its tone is sharp. ================= uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ================= The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email. -- 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: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened? Message-ID: <1991Nov13.142722.13085@eff.org> References: <199111100652.AA01567@eff.org> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 14:27:22 GMT On Fri, 8 Nov 1991 16:44:57 GMT Carl M. Kadie said: > >There is no procedure for appealing his computer expulsion. There are >of course extra procedural methods (ombudsman, University president, >the Governor of Ohio). I think he has made some efforts in this >direction, but without result. ALILESTE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Dan Lester) writes: [...] >How can you call the items in parens above "extra-procedural"?? [...] I don't know if "extra-procedural" is the best word or not. In any case, let me try to explain what I mean. The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says: "The jurisdictions of faculty or student judicial bodies, the disciplinary responsibilities of institutional officials and the regular disciplinary procedures, including the student's right to appeal a decision, should be clearly formulated and communicated in advance." As far as I can determine, students and faculty who are expelled from ACS computers are not told of their right to appeal or the procedure for such an appeal. The wording of ACS policy makes me wonder if they consider their decisions open to appeal. The failure to establish a procedure is as bad as a failure to notify students of their rights. Without a procedure, students and faculty cannot be sure their their appeal will be taken seriously. They may fear or discover a Catch-22: There are procedures set up to appeal all disciplinary decisions. There are no procedures set up to appeal ACS computer expulsions, therefore, computer expulsions cannot be disciplinay, therefore, there are no procedures set up to appeal computer expulsions. - 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: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened? Message-ID: <1991Nov13.214531.2899@eff.org> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 21:45:31 GMT In article <1991Nov09.122028.4781@cavebbs.gen.nz> Charlie Lear writes: > In article <1991Nov7.160237.29438@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > { diatribe against OSU deleted for brevity } > >against Mr. Brack and that the charges are then dropped and that his > >computer expulsion is ended. In the future, I hope that ACS will > >handle problems less hysterically and more professionally by: > > From what I have read in the last few months, Brack was a royal pain in the > ass for all concerned and I would be extremely surprised to find that OSU > did not examine the situation with extreme thoroughness before taking > extreme measures. As far as I know, you can't be dismissed for being a pain in the ass. What OSU did was to overreact to three or four minor incidents. The only action I ever performed that had any impact on the system was the fixman command, a command that: 1) should not have been open to any user, and 2) caused no real damage, only the removal of underlining from man pages which were easily restored from backup. Everything else was just thrown in so that the body of evidence against me would seem more damning than it actually is. > How many others have OSU suspended for similar offences? Hundreds? Dozens? > A few? None? I know of one other who left OSU because of "similar offenses." But, remember: I was only there for ~8 mos. There could have been others before or after me, of which I am unaware. > How many thousands of students are there at OSU? Doesn't it seem odd that > you are publicly championing someone who, by espousing terms of injured > innocence, is trying to convince The World that it's not his fault that > OSU happen to be picking on him? To clarify, once more: I am the cause of the action. The action, however is of far greater scope than anything I did. I admit that had I been a "nice person," this wouldn't have happened. But, I hold that even though I wasn't a nice person, my actions did not justify dismissal. > > >1) working with the user community to create and implement a good > >written policy > > Define "good". What you consider good and what other people consider > workable may turn out to be completely different things. How about a policy that informs the user what is expected of him, and of what he can expect to do for him. > >2) talking *with* (not "at") users when there is a problem > > You're assuming an egalitarian relationship where none exists. Brack was > instructed to do some things and specifically not to do others. You're > telling the world (in deleted text above) that the administrators concerned > should have accepted deliberate disobedience and let Brack do as he liked. > Wonderful precedent you're trying to set. I was not told of the "wrongness" of my actions until after I had committed them. If I had been told prior to that, then I would not have committed them. A person cannot be held to a rule which was never made public, and which may not have even existed at the time he allegedly violated it. > > >3) respecting their user's freedom of expression > > Up to the point where that freedom of expression infringes on the freedoms > of others, in this case the freedom to read messages about fish without > having them interspersed with inanities. I'm glad we have you posting to this group. It's nice to see that there's at least one person on the Net who has never made a mistake, or been deceived. I wish I had been like you. > >4) respecting their user's due process rights by punishing (when > >necessary) users only after the user has had a chance for a hearing. > > Are you saying that the entire Brack affair was some sort of esoteric > play-by-mail one-sided farce? On review of the facts, it would appear > that he had ample opportunity to put forward his "case" to the appropriate > people. He simply failed to avail himself of the chances given to him to > clean up his act. Why should we even be discussing this case when in > essence, Brack failed to communicate effectively with administrative staff? > His lack of communication, and apparent unwillingness to behave in > accordance with accepted norms, caused the suspension. What has that got > to do with Usenet and computers and networks? If you're going to make sweeping conclusions based on "the facts," do me the courtesy of stating the facts to which you refer. > > >Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com > >I do not represent EFF; this is just me. > > Thank God for that. You had me worried there. The tone of your post seems very flippant considering the degree of condemnation you display toward me. > > -- > Charlie "The Bear" Lear | clear@cavebbs.gen.nz | Kawasaki Z750GT DoD#0221 -- Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu 2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com +1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu ------------------------------ From: jaw@pygmy.owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Rice University's Owlnet and University Computing Policies Message-ID: <9111122320.AA07027@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 21:49:45 GMT In article <1234>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > .... > > >Inappropriate use includes, but is not limited to: > > .... > > >o accessing files or sending mail to/from off-campus sites without > >the permission of the Vice President of Information Systems > > Why is this? What is the problem with sending or receiving mail from > off-campus sites and why would the Vice President of Information Systems > need to approve this usage? > You are misinterpreting the language of the condition. Receiving things from off-campus is not restricted. Sending things only requires that you obtain permission to do so. There is no actual barrier to sending things. Your friend could do it without obtaining permission. Why obtain permission? Because as I said in a previous post, the University wants some reasonable acknowledgement that a user who is accessing off-campus facilities, or sending messages off-campus, has a least read the Appropriate Use of Computer Facilities policy and understands the responsibilities they have as a user of the networks. In addition, the University would like the students' use of the NSFnet to be reasonably connected to education. A faculty member signs the permission form agreeing that the stated purpose for off-campus access is reasonably connected to education. Why would the University want this? and why the VPIS? A couple of years ago, Rice was threatened with two lawsuits over some e-mail that a student sent out. The student forged the e-mail in the name of another person not at Rice. The e-mail said some really nasty things. The other person figured out who it was, and threatened to sue Rice. Rice, in the course of dealing with this, revoked access by the student who sent the forged message. That student then threatened to sue Rice for revoking his access. Needless to say, the University took some steps to protect itself and to provide some brake on the ability to have this happen again. Thus, the Appropriate Use policy with the permission for off-campus access requirement. The VP IS is involved because that position is the only office at Rice that could cover all students at Rice in terms of granting permission. > > >Again, inappropriate use is not limited to the above situations. You > >should send mail to consult@owlnet asking about anything that > >might be questionable before you do it. You risk having your > >account locked otherwise. > > This sounds rather draconian; additionally, you have a provision above > (sending or receiving mail from off-site) that a user potentially has no > control over! Draconian? We are going out of our way to give the students a means to *avoid* doing something that they don't realize could get them in trouble. We are not interested in trouncing naive students who accidentally get themselves into trouble. We want our students to think before they act. We want them to not bumble into trouble, both for their own sakes and because we have better, more constructive things to do than chase down students who are screwing up the system because they don't know any better and there was no one for them to ask about it. > > Thus, a user could end up with his or her account locked without taking > ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER. > Wrong. As I said above, receiving things from off-campus is not against policy. Sending without obtaining permission is. > This is beginning to sound more and more like a "typical" tyrannical > IS department at a University.... > > > Electronic Mail and Privacy > > > >Owlnet management will not regulate in any way the content of private, > >consensual electronic mail communication between users. > > Unless one end of the connection is off-site, in which case you'll lock > the on-site user's account (from above). > Nope. See above. > >Many users routinely disable incoming talk messages, presumably to cut > >down on distracting conversations with other users. We would advise > >that you not disable incoming talk messages as a matter of course. > >This will reduce the possibility that a system administrator who may be > >trying to talk to you will misinterpret your actions. Message > >receiving is enabled by default, so if you do not taken action to > >disable it, you have nothing to worry about. > > So now as a student I have to be subject to pages from any user on the > system in order to avoid having my account locked for "not responding to an > administrator's message"? Sheesh... > In practice, we've found few students actually get spurious pages from other students. And in addition, this only covers incidents when there appears to be unusual or suspicious activity going on. Further, as the first part of the policy states, the lockout is only used if the user *logs off immediately* in response to a sysadmin talk request. As the language says, we only *advise* that they not routinely disable talk. It is not required. We are informing the students that if they choose to disable talk messages, they are increasing the possibility that their actions could be misinterpreted by a sysadmin. In other words, rather than being the "tell them nothing and then pound them when they break an unwritten rule" type of system, we are taking steps to make students aware of the *possible* consequences of their actions. > > George Rupp > > August 10, 1990 > > -- > Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) > Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T > Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions -- Joseph A. Watters, Jr. jaw@owlnet.rice.edu Deputy Director, Owlnet Rice University ------------------------------ From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: A Commercial BBS drops screening/censoring Message-ID: <1991Nov13.144642.13768@eff.org> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 14:46:42 GMT According to a Newsbytes story posted in clair.nb.telecom on Nov. 7th, Odyssey, a BBS in Monrovia, California, has dropped screening/censoring. Odyssey's owner is worried about complaints (lawsuits?) like those that Prodigy received from the ADL for not screening/censoring well. "Prodigy practically has more lawyers than users and can fight this stuff all day long. But a suit like that would shut down Odyssey," he told Newsbytes. Newsbytes says: 'When asked what censorship existed before the policy announcement, Allen said censorship did exist, but alluded that the concept of censorship had to do more with staying on the subject of the forum, rather than placing any value judgement on anything that was said.' - 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: Due process at Alabana A&M Message-ID: <1991Nov15.212358.28314@eff.org> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 21:23:58 GMT I've been send an article on the last page of the sports section of the _Birmignham News_, Nov. 14, 1991 about public university due process. It says: "The judge [U.S. District Judge E.B. Haltom] told attorneys for Alabama A&M University that students brought before the school's Judiciary Board for disciplinary actions -- like the 10 student athletes ordered suspended for one year over a fighting incident -- must be informed of specific charges against them and given the names of those who are to testify against them." - 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: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) Subject: Re: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened? Message-ID: <9111152223.AA19536@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> Sender: brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu Date: 15 Nov 91 22:23:05 GMT In article <1991Nov15.134338.24003@ms.uky.edu> Wes Morgan writes: > Steven S. Brack (brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu) writes: > > To be honest about it, I remember the users with whom I speak most often, > regardless of the reason. In total, I could probably name about 5% of the > users of my system, even though I've spoken with more than 75% of them. > Most of those have been people who come in for help; as I've said before, > I have *very* few "discipline problems". I had a problem last week, > but I'll discuss that later. From your description, you seem to run a fairly loose system. That sort of give & take approach allows users & admins to work out solutions to problems, rather than firing ultimatums at one another. Here at Toledo, student Computer Services NAS9080 accounts cannot be used for just about anything. This was due to an extremely unpleasant experience/argument with an undergrad user about 5-6 years ago. From those I've talked to, I get the impression that the whole problem could have been resolved by a simple admin to user chat, but was exacerbated by a lack of cooperation on both sides. > > > Depending on the type of printer, could it be automatically reset > > or reset by the employee at the site, even by cycling power on & off? > > It certainly could, but the lab runs at 20-30 users all day long. By the > time our lab assistant notices that the printer settings are hosed, four > of five users may already have received trashed printouts. I don't ex- Perhaps I misunderstood; are the printer sin question set out for general use, or are they special access/pay for laser printing machines? > pect our assistants to hop up and check the printer settings every time > a job is output. Yes, it could be done, but it is a *major* inconvenience. > There is a point at which the users must take some responsibility; I felt > that this situation had reached that point. If the users software interferes with the running of the lab, he/she is warned about it, & continues to do it, then your solution seems the only one available. > > Well, I thought that the original sign, which read "Do not change the > settings on this printer", would be sufficient. With the exception of > that one individual, it seems to suffice. In your original post, I don't believe you referenced the sign. I apologize if I missed it. Some users don't seem to be happy with less than full control of system resources. These people probably don't belong on a timesharing system. 8) > Agreed. I always try to give a complete explanation of the problem. I > know that a simple "you're screwing up" is never sufficient. That is the kind of attitude more sysadmins need to adopt. Usrs & admins need not be enemies, as they are on some systems, & not just at Ohio State. > > Also, what sort of letters & phone calls did you make? Was it possible > > that he misinterpreted your interest? > > Well, the written messages simply said "When you print documents, are you > changing the printer settings? We are having some problems with the printer, > and I'd like your help. Please come by my office or send me electronic mail > as soon as possible. This is an urgent matter." The phone messages (which > I assume were taken by his roommate) merely said "Please get in touch with me > as soon as possible; we need to talk about some printer problems in the PC > Lab". I try to be as polite as possible when sending messages to users; I > don't want them to get the impression that I'm some kind of ogre. Mutual respect seem to be integral to having a smooth-running system. > > I know several people who won't > > go to ACS's "meetings" because of the reputation the admins have for > > reaming users. > > I have heard of this problem. As far as I know, it hasn't happened here. > We tend to run a fairly open shop, and users often come in to ask questions > about the system. It makes for some interesting discussions; ever try to > explain "machine epsilon" to someone who doesn't even know what a byte is? 8) Pity ACS isn't more like your department. 8) Ever try to explain the difference between 3.5" floppies & hard disks to users? ("I saved this on my hard disk, & it's not there.") 8) > Nah; I usually work from the assumption that, on those occasions when > problems arise, the users are just experimenting. Heck, I *want* them > to explore; there are very few "sacred cows" in our shop. In fact, I > have several small Unix boxes (3B2/310s, if anyone's interested), which > I offer to people who want to get into the nuts and bolts of Unix. One > or two users have taken advantage of that in the past; I'll give them the > root password to the machine, and the only condition is that the 3B2/310 > is cut off from the outside world (no telnet/ftp out, no email). That > seems to solve the problem; the user gets to dive deep into Unix, and I > don't have to worry about them trashing the 2000-user main system. Side question: how does your department get the funding to maintain Un*x systems for experimnentation/fun? It seems ACS never has enough money, unless it's for new workstations for faculty members & upper-echelon ACS admins. > Well, the majority of users, when confronted with a user who is gulping > resources at a high rate, will clamor for that user's jobs to be killed. > Of course, I refuse to do that until I've spoken with the "offending" > user (who usually doesn't realize the impact of his usage). Usually, a > good explanation (and a bit of peer pressure from other users) results > in a satisfactory solution. At OSU, most resource-hogging jobs are done on private workstations, or are "nice"d down to an acceptable level. > > > I believe that the majority of users must become more aware of how their > > actions affect others. At OSU, the system I used had, at one time > > 3-4 MUD type games running. This appreciably slowed the (already slow) > > system down, tied up ports & ttys, and used disk space excessively. > > Since one of the offenders was an admin, nothing was done. There has > > always been a 'no games' policy at ACS, although it was > > not publicised until recently. The MUDs in question were allowed to operate because a sysadmin was one of the offenders. It would not have looked right for an admin to be punished for running a MUD. > > I recently had a MUD experience that relates to this discussion. We had > been having some serious networking problems, and I found 3 users logged > in 7 times, all playing MUDs at mit.edu and cdc.com. One of the machines on > which they were running the MUD was sending misaligned and fragmentary > packets, which were "melting down" our local network. Since they were > logged in several times, I also suspected that they were sharing their > passwords (this is also a violation of policy). I sent them an interactive > message, telling them that we did not allow game playing and > asking them to stop MUDding. They ignored those messages, so I logged in > to the MUD and sent them a message from within the game. They ignored > that as well, so (after 10 minutes for a safety margin) I disconnected > them and disabled their accounts. I then sent electronic mail to their > accounts on the general student computer, explaining my action and telling > them that their account would be reenabled as soon as they stopped by to > talk with me. When they came in, I gave them a 5-minute explanation of > how TCP/IP works and how their MUDding placed a significant load on both > the system and the network. They were not aware of the significance of > their actions, nor were they aware of the "no games" policy (even though > it is clearly stated in the online announcements they all read). They used > our system for MUDding because the general student computer (which allows > game playing) was unavailable. I reenabled their accounts, and there have > been no further problems. I admire the way you handled that. In my experience, admins are more likely to take network problems caused by users as a personal effront to them. > There are those who may find my actions in this matter chilling, but the > users involved didn't have any complaints. We had an open discussion, and > everyone aired their views. I assured them that no permanent record was > being kept on them; noone had knowledge of our action except me and my boss. > I told them that any complaints about my action could be directed to either > my boss or the Dean of the college; no complaints were registered. I've > spoken with them socially several times, and one of them now wants to learn > more about networking. In all, I'd say that it worked out well. I'd have to agree. Establishing a positive rapport with users seems a good way to prevent problems. But, what would you do for an organization that supported a user base that was simply too large for it to easily give the kind of attention you gave. > > This incident also illustrates the "man on the scene" authority that > admins need. If I had been required to seek permission from my boss > (who was unavailable at the time) before terminating their gaming, the > bad packets sent from those off-campus MUD machines could have caused > a "meltdown" of our entire network. The possibility of compromised > passwords was also an immediate concern. I had to act, and I did. After > the fact, I explained my actions to everyone involved. The users are > unhappy about the "no gaming" restrictions, but they now understand the > reasons behind them. Dialogue and user education save the day! Admins probably should be able to take almost any action under a sort of "emergency authority" with provision for appeal/review after the emergency was over. > > -- > morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan -- Steven S. Brack | brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu 2021 Roanwood Drive | STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu Toledo, Ohio 43613-1605 _________/^\_______ sbrack@bluemoon.rn.com +1 419 474 1010 | MY OWN OPINIONS | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu ------------------------------ From: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Sanjay Kapur) Subject: User/admin communication. Message-ID: <9A03910890421012@ccmail.sunysb.edu> Sender: SKAPUR@ccmail.sunysb.edu Date: 16 Nov 91 17:39:00 GMT Date sent: 16-NOV-1991 12:20:57 This is in response to the recent dialogue betwwen Wes Morgan and Steven Brack. I would like to add that all problems between users and system administrators can be avoided if there is better communications between users and system administrators. I would like to propose that to improve this communication the following be done: 1) Like the student-teacher ratio, the user-admin ratio needs to be reduced at large sites. 2) Like class size in a school, the total number of users on a system should be kept at a manageable level. 3) As many layers of bureaucracy as possible should be removed between the users and the system administrators. Users should always have direct and open access to the system administrators. Systems administrators should also have direct access to the users. There should not be any go-between that either is required to go through. The first two proposals require that more money be spent although I have a feeling that proposal three would result in enough saving to pay for the first two and a lot more. Sanjay Kapur |Internet: Sanjay.Kapur@sunysb.edu Systems Staff, Computing Services, |Bitnet: SKAPUR@USB State University of New York, |SPAN/HEPnet: 44132::SKAPUR Stony Brook, NY 11794-2400 |Phone:(516)632-8029, FAX:(516)632-8046 ------------------------------ From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] "Acceptable Use" Policies. Why does everyone want one? Message-ID: <9111162029.AA27328@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 13 Nov 91 00:40:25 GMT I am really surprised at all the "Acceptable Use" policies being handed down by universities these days. Not that the policies are too harsh or anything (don't want to start that argument again), but that everyone seems to take the wrong tack. Shouldn't we have a list of "Unacceptable Uses" instead? I'm perfectly willing to live by a small number of things that the university agrees I should *not* do, but the idea that for anything not on the list of "Acceptable Uses" I must go and beg permission appalls me. I rather favor in network terms something like what this countries founders envisioned for our government. The administration should regulate *only* to the extent that it absolutely must. Any government that only allows it's people to do what the government allows and nothing else is doomed. Witness the USSR. Laugh if you wish, but I don't think the comparison is completely inapt. Stifling of computing freedom via over-regulation could easily leave the US in the software dumper as surely as government control has killed so many other vibrant industries. Almost all of the problems boil down to resource consumption, be it disk, printing, or network bandwidth. Instead of trying to legislate the problem away, why not try and identify problem users and deal with them? For example, I keep printer accounting records (although we don't charge), when I see a really big spike on the graph, I go talk to that person. Usually it's as simple as they did something wrong by accident or ignorance, or that they simply don't realize how much toner cartridges cost. I have not met anyone yet who when confronted, didn't change their ways. The same with network games like mud's. I know where the muds are running with a little lookaround with netstat on the workstations. The owners are usually more than happy to put some disclaimer on their intro screen like: The system administrator highly discourages off-campus mud access. Think about the cost of those gateways before doing it. This sort of thing is usually more than sufficient to take care of the "problem". IMHO, if you haven't got the time to intelligently *manage* a system, go find a job somewhere else. Legislating problems away, and using policies to cover your ass won't solve anything. Uneducated, unaware, un-managed users are a problem. But you don't manage users by making them sign a permission slip they will not read anyway. You try and educate your users as much as possible on the most efficient ways to do things, and deal with the trouble-makers directly. This may mean teaching an intro seminar, and maybe some time spent monitoring the health of your systems, No sensible manager would say no to a request that these services be offered for the users' benefit. It is also a very small investment for the school, with a greatly increased productivity payback. For instance, here at Tech, we have a large domain with one fat Sequent, and lots of Suns. The suns are all in the same NIS, and can acces the same filespace. But many people have never had it explained to them that they can access their files anywhere other than the Sequent. So the Sequent is always way overloaded with people simply editing files and things that could easily have been done on another CPU. Here's my suggestion toward solving the problem: Requiring that prospective users attend a seminar on efficient use of campus resources before their account is activated would seem like a reasonable policy to me. Really and truly folks, most of them are just ignorant and more than willing to help out IF they know what your problems are as system administrators. Once again, I see my mission as a sys admin as making my user community as aware and free as possible. Perhaps I should have tossed in a smiley there somewhere. I'm sure I will have offended someone somewhere. -- Vincent Fox (That's Mr. Bucko to you)| A society that will trade a little Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA | liberty for a little order will lose SR-71: gt1111a@prism.gatech.edu | both, and deserve neither. Pony Express:...!gatech!prism!gt1111a| -John Stuart Mill ------------------------------ From: les@sail.stanford.edu (Les Earnest) Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Finger & Liberty Message-ID: <1991Nov15.221601.2527@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU References: <9111151537.AA21671@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 22:16:01 GMT A missing feature in finger is anonymity for those who wish it. Unfortunately, I didn't think of that when I invented finger in 1972 as a local utility program for the Stanford A.I. Lab nor when we later added network access to it. -- Les Earnest Phone: 415 941-3984 Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les Los Altos Hills, CA 94022