Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 01, No. 40 [Week ending Dec 1, 1991 [The guest editor this week is Benjamin Gross. For information on being a guest editor, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send acad-freedom call-for-guest-editors - Carl Kadie] ========================== KEY ================================== The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE/SUMMARY of the article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. ================================================================= Note 1 Discusses system administratiors that ban or restrict IRC. 1. (a sysadmin) "Certainly, denying IRC access unilaterally hurts the concientious, fair minded IRC users who don't unfairly monopolise these resources, but how on earth do you cheaply implement a fairer policy? (Suggestions greatfully appreciated!)' and "IRC has a >0 cost and a >0 benefit, and presently the benefits outweigh the cost so I provide IRC services. If the balance changes adversely, I'll limit the service or remove it completely." Notes 2-5 are discussing the benefits and problems of system accounting. 2. (Carl M. Kadie) "Use of 'ps -aux' should not be severely restricted because it allows users and sys admin to see the amount of computer resources being used as they are being used. This allows high-CPU runaway jobs to be identified and stopped before they waste more resources (e.g. fixman). This allows users to make intelligent decisions about when and where to run new jobs. This allows peer pressure to be applied to users who use an unfair amount of resources for the given situation." <1991Nov25.162134.6865@eff.org> 3. (Carl M. Kadie) Defends his position that users should have access to ps against (Steven Brack) who says it is not one users place to decide what process other users can execute. Carl says "if I see that you have what looks like a run away process, I can send you and/or the sys admin email. Why should I be the one doing this? Because, I'm the one who wants the cycles. The sys admin isn't logged into the computer, or isn't paying close attention. You may have logged off or started work on another task, not realizing that your job is still running." <1991Nov25.213447.14114@eff.org> 4. (Wes Morgan) States that he does not believe ps and other accounting measures are an invasion of privacy, because the computer is a publicly avaliable resource. Since the computer account is provided by the university and "your use of a given computer system affects all other users of that system," "then the need for this information becomes apparent." He states that the users real information, at least a minimun of the real name, must be avaliable so that they can be contacted, otherwise the user loses the benefits of effective electronic communication." <1991Nov26.232012.2924@ms.uky.edu> 5. (Jim Thompson) "I rejected, and continued to reject, the notion that ps is "privacy-invasive"; if anything, I tried to put the burden where it belongs: on those who wish to protect every bit and byte of information regarding themselves." Although, "users have a right to know, up front, what information about them might be disclosed, and how -- even if they have no choice about some of it, for example their real name being associated with their uid via finger." <9111271314.AA02555@se33.wg2.waii.com> Note 6 is a staff member from ACS at OSU. 6. (ACS employee) States that he will not condone or condem the ACS policy, but, "that Ugly rumours about censorship at ACS are ridiculous." "Opinion - can't prove it - but my experience is ACS is filled with people who strongly believe in electronic freedom, open computing, call it what you will." and "We brought usenet & e-mail to the masses here. We fought for it, we are fighting for it." Also, "some people regarded as villains here are trying hard to make computing more open and useful on campus. The major limitation is money - or put another way people at the very top of osu & state gov't have to see computing as basic part of education. We do." <1991Nov25.165500.11219@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Note 7 is on the Alt.sex flap at U of Iowa. 7. (Doug Jones) reports "Today's Daily Iowan, Monday Nov. 25, 1991, has joined the fray. On the top of page 3A, on the left, is the headline 'UI Computer Files Contain Pornography', followed by the same kind of incisive reporting of the alt.sex newsgroups that we have become used to from the print media. The article does mention that the "pornography" is carried by USENET, but no mention is made of other material on USENET. The article indicates that the U of I computers contain "over 70,000 pages" of pornography, which is nonsense -- this is roughly the total number of postings that have been delivered to Iowa's machines over USENET, but nobody at the DI seems to have noticed that things get deleted on a regular basis." <9300@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> Notes 8-9 are about restricting personal use of the universities computers. 8. (A student) Says that he believe that there should be a distinction of the diffrent kinds of recreational computer use, "those that have have an arguable nexus to the communication of ideas and those that do not (by which I refer principally to computer games)." This especialy applies to general use computers and sites. <199111252159.AA14818@eff.org> 9. (Carl M. Kadie) says "The policy could be improved by applying the "game policy" to all noncommercial personal use." "In other words, instead of banning nongame, noncommercial personal use, SEASnet should at least allow nongame, noncommercial personal use on the same basis that it allows game playing." and "I was not suggesting *adding* a restriction; I was suggesting *removing* a restriction." <1991Nov25.223548.15641@eff.org> Note 10 is a site manager has problems with gamers and would like suggestions. 10.(Site manager) "I manage 8 student computing sites with about 500 machines (PC, MAC, NeXT) and I'm having more and more trouble with gamers, especially IRCers and MUDers." and "Our policy states that the sites are primarily for academic work. If all the machines are full when a person comes in to do a paper, all the gamers are booted for a period of time. This is getting to be a major headache for my staff. How do you all handle it?" <1991Nov27.215410.18938@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 11. (Carl M. Kadie) Enclosed is a first draft of a bibilography on Computers and Academic Freedom. !---------------------> Guest editor: Benjamin Gross <------------------------! ! Mail to: b-gross@uiuc.edu /!\ NeXT mail: bgross@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu ! ! No matter where you go, there you are. --Buckaroo Bonzai-- ! !-------------> Reality is only for those who lack imagination. <-------------! !--> Disclaimer: I speak only on my own behalf, all opinions are my own. <--! ] In this issue: Sean Batt 42 >Sysadmins banning IRC... Carl M. Kadie 39 >System Accounting: Fascist Tool? Carl M. Kadie 59 > Wes Morgan 193 > Jim Thompson 63 > Terry N Reeves 59 I am from ACS at OSU Douglas W Jones 32 Alt.sex flap at U of Iowa U15289@UICVM 100 On "Personal Use" restrictions Carl M. Kadie 25 > Declan Fleming 12 Gaming Carl M. Kadie 161 CAF bibliography 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 a guest editor or 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: sean@coombs.anu.edu.au (Sean Batt) Subject: Re: Sysadmins banning IRC... Message-ID: Date: 25 Nov 91 07:25:22 GMT G'Day all, Scott's got it right, you know: IRC doesn't have very much academic respectability and hence has a low priority when it comes to resource allocation. In an environment where computing resources are finite, system administrators really must be able to restrict or deny access to apparently unproductive programs like IRC, or talk, or news or even mail. Sysadmins, remember, often have a clearer picture of overall resource usage than do their users. Around assignment deadline time in the undergraduate terminal rooms here, for example, I've seen people queue for terminals some of which were being used to run IRC. Certainly, denying IRC access unilaterally hurts the concientious, fair minded IRC users who don't unfairly monopolise these resources, but how on earth do you cheaply implement a fairer policy? (Suggestions greatfully appreciated!) I have some sympathy for the view of the sysadmins who see IRC as a security risk. Unfortunately it would seem that IRC has been indirectly responsible for two counts of electronic trespassing (read cracking) at my site. I've provided a guest account for people to use IRC, and tried quite hard to stop malicious use of that service, but I've still been able to track a copy of my passwd file on uunet to a guest user. (Doesn't that just rot your socks? Sheesh! Try and be nice and someone still takes advantage of you.) Balancing that however, I've found IRC to be a very valuable service, both professionally and personally; I've "met" some really nice people and recieved advice on how to clean up after a crack (1/2 :-), for example. So IRC has a >0 cost and a >0 benefit, and presently the benefits outweigh the cost so I provide IRC services. If the balance changes adversely, I'll limit the service or remove it completely. Sean (a.k.a. MupBear) -- ------------- Sean Sebastian Batt - sean@coombs.anu.edu.au -------- .______. -------- Coombs Computing Section - Telephone: +61 6 249 3296 ----- | Damn |\ -- Australian National University - GPO Box 4 Canberra City 2601 -- | Fine |/ ------------------------------------------------------------------- `------' ------------------- From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: System Accounting: Fascist Tool? Message-ID: <1991Nov25.162134.6865@eff.org> References: <9111251523.AA05399@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 16:21:34 GMT How about this as a statement for debate: Resolved: Use of the Unix "ps" command should be severely restricted for the sake of user privacy. Believe it or not, I'm going to take the negative position and defend "ps". ------- Use of "ps -aux" should not be severely restricted because it allows users and sys admin to see the amount of computer resources being used as they are being used. This allows high-CPU runaway jobs to be identified and stopped before they waste more resources (e.g. fixman). This allows users to make intelligent decisions about when and where to run new jobs. This allows peer pressure to be applied to users who use an unfair amount of resources for the given situation. As an example of all the points. Suppose, a class of 10 students must run their program on 5 big test cases. If one student program has a bug that puts it into an endless loop, "ps -aux" will give the sys admin and other users a chance to notice the run away program. With "ps -aux" a student may notice that no one else is running big programs on the computer and decide that it would be OK to run all five of his or her programs at once. If he or she was wrong about being the only one needs to run big programs, other students, using "ps", will be able to identify who is hogging the CPU. They can then send email to the effect, "hey, there are others of us here, too. How about running just one program at a time?" With "ps", the computer is a shared resource. Without "ps" the computer is a PC with an unpredictable CPU rate. - Carl p.s. I like "top" even better than "ps". -- 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 f1 Wed Dec 11 16:34:59 1991 >From e1 Wed Dec 11 16:28:37 1991 >From dec__1_1991 Wed Dec 11 16:02:40 1991 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: System Accounting: Fascist Tool? Message-ID: <1991Nov25.213447.14114@eff.org> References: <9111252053.AA09129@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 21:34:47 GMT kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >: Use of "ps -aux" should not be severely restricted because it allows >: users and sys admin to see the amount of computer resources being used >: as they are being used. This allows high-CPU runaway jobs to be >: identified and stopped before they waste more resources (e.g. fixman). >: This allows users to make intelligent decisions about when and where >: to run new jobs. This allows peer pressure to be applied to users who >: use an unfair amount of resources for the given situation. brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes: > It is not the users place to decide what processes are allowed > to be executed by other users. That is a function of the > sysadmin (remember the concierge theory?). I don't want > anyone who does a ps -a to know what I'm doing. If I want\ > people to know, I'll tell them, but I don't want information > private to me to be given to anyone who asks without my permission. [...] > What good would it do the other users to see his/her runaway > process? The only ones who can stop it are the student & > the admin, in any case. [...] Well, if I see that you have what looks like a run away process, I can send you and/or the sys admin email. Why should I be the one doing this? Because, I'm the one who wants the cycles. The sys admin isn't logged into the computer, or isn't paying close attention. You may have logged off or started work on another task, not realizing that your job is still running. > Basic system load information would tell users what they need to > know, without revealing private information. [...] At the very least, I want to know how much load each user is putting on the system. If five users are each running five cpu-bound jobs, causing my cpu-bound job to run slowly, I won't say anything. If, however, one user is running five cpu-bounds jobs, causing my one cpu-bound jobs to run slowly, I may send that user email asking that he or she, say, lower the priorty of his or her jobs. Why should he or she cooperate with me? Because, tomorrow he or she may want to send me a similar note. Without per-user load information, cooperation is very unlikely. Knowing the program being run (g++, Lisp, etc) is also helpful, but not as important. - 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: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Subject: Re: System Accounting: Fascist Tool? Message-ID: <1991Nov26.232012.2924@ms.uky.edu> Date: 26 Nov 91 23:20:12 GMT References: <9111261414.AA19022@se33.wg2.waii.com> <1991Nov26.161123.7594@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >thompson@se01.wg2.waii.com (Jim Thompson) writes: >>I would also add that, in the interest of protecting those who aren't >>unix-savvy, the sysadmin powers-that-be have an *obligation* to their users to >>inform them of ps, its dangers, and how >>to protect against them. (And probably >>also about lpq or lpstat.) "dangers"? "dangers"??!! The length of the list of "privacy-invading" programs/utilities continues to amaze me. In this thread, various posters have condemned: -- who -- finger -- ps -- lpq/lpstat -- acctcom How far is this going to go? Are you folks going to speak against the inclusion of date/time stamps in electronic mail? After all, those lines tell people which machine you used for email and when you used it; horrors! Let's refute these 5 sample cases on an individual basis: Note: These rebuttals are based on the academic model; corporate or private systems are completely outside of this model. Users of academic systems are using University resources, which makes their usage a public matter, in my opinion. -- who Con: It's nobody's business whether or not I'm logged in! Pro: Many users check who before starting large jobs. If they see, say, 6 people from their class logged in, they may not want to run their huge fortran program at that time. Many users have discovered that their passwords were compromised by checking who. -- finger Con: It's nobody's business when I last read my mail! It's nobody's business if I use a pseudonym! Pro: When people receive unrequested email or messages, finger is the first step in identifying the source. When admins (or professors, or bureaucrats) need information about a user, finger is often the first stop. In official matters, pseudonyms are unacceptable. When users are trying to contact each other, finger is often a first step ("Did he have a chance to read the mail I sent?") -- acctcom Con: It's nobody's business what I use the computer for! Pro: Many systems are intended solely for academic use. acctcom can be an indicator of possible abuses of the system. While the "academic use" condition is usually very broad, many sites have a strict "not for profit/private business" policy. acctcom can be an indicator of possible abuses. On systems with fees/charges, many department heads/managers use accounting tools to enforce system policies -- ps (and w and top, as well) Con: It's nobody's business what my processes are doing! Pro: Many users schedule their work based on the system load. If their jobs are not completed within the norms, users usually use ps to get a general picture of the system. Sysadmins use ps for gross system optimization. Many classes (especially in CS/EE) use system monitoring tools such as ps to demonstrate "how real systems are used". -- lpq/lpstat Con: It's nobody's business what I print! Pro: User schedule their printing based on the system load. Some systems charge for printing; lpq/lpstat become valuable tools for department heads/managers, who do not normally have sysadmin privileges. >Maybe we have an outline of a confidentially policy for the Statement >on Computers and Academic Freedom. >Information about users should not be disclosed to outsiders except >under the conditions specified under Federal law. If the system contains such information, it should certainly be protected. Examples of this would be SSNs, home addresses, and the like. Of course, my systems only say "User jbfoo01 is John B Foo, and he's a Mechanical Engineering student"; that's hardly private information. >2. Email and news reading > >Library confidentially policy applies to use of email, Netnews, >anonymous archives, and similar media. This limits the collection, >retention, and dissemination of personally-identified use records. Yes and no; I've often been asked for my name and position when using public library facilities, such as PC labs, microfiche machines, and other semi-controlled facilities. I'm sure that those records still exist. I would point out that those records merely state that I was using a microfiche machine; they don't say anything about the individual fiches I was perusing. That's an important distinction, which I'll talk about later in this posting. >3. User control > >Unless there is a good reason, information about a user >should either be confidential or under each users control. Nope. I don't buy this one. There is nothing wrong with disseminating how my systems are used. I don't see anything wrong with seeing that jbfoo01 was running "vi junk.f". If he's protected his files from other users, what "private information" is being revealed here? "junk.f" might (or might not) be a Fortran program, which he might (or might not) be building for a class. It might actually be a love letter to his girlfriend Flo. Assuming that information belonging to users (i.e., files) are protected by privacy policy, I don't see anything wrong with making the typical "ps" information available. >e.g. "The 'ps' command is allowed because (we think) it >enables better cpu and memory sharing on computers." >(Not "Because if you don't like you can use a PC.") OK, you asked for it: "We do not find the normal Unix command set invasive of user privacy. Therefore, we have chosen to make the default installation of Unix available to you. You can find more information in the online help files or in the printed manuals in room XXX." >b) Users should be informed of what kind of information might >disclosed (i.e. if you signed on, when you last read mail, how much >CPU you are using, what command you have run in the last 2 days) and >to what kind of person (i.e. sys admins, other users, anyone on the >Net, etc) Carl, you just added 5-10 pages to my policy statement with this statement. Is it really necessary? In 15 years of working with computers (the last 5 as a full sysadmin, with assistance experience prior to that), I have never heard a single complaint about these facilities. By the way, would you like to try explaining all of these commands to incoming freshmen with zero large-system experience? They don't even know what a "process" is, much less what the status would be! (for you non-Unix types, "ps" stands for "process status") Rather than arbitrarily promoting privacy screens, let's nail down the reasons by which these standards should be imposed. So far, all I've seen is "It's nobody's business!". Remember, this thread started with a user who didn't want to have his real name attached to a user account on a University system, which was given to him at the expense of said University. Can you imagine trying to manage a system where all the usernames were tied to pseudonyms? Suppose that "finger al3w" resulted in "Name: The Zorkmeister"; wasn't that helpful? Sheesh. Suppose that someone's faculty advisor is trying to get in touch with you; I guess he just loses, eh? No, you lose, because you are making it impossible for people to use the system effectively to contact you. Please, let's nail down the need before we start finding solutions. >What are all the ways that information is disclosed, say, > on a Unix system? (finger, ps, top, ...) Hasn't > someone somewhere already documented theses? Yup, it's freely available to any user in almost any Unix text I've ever seen. The online man pages and printed manual for your particular system are the best place to start. In conclusion, the computer is a tool; it's applications are much like those of an audio/visual lab. The a/v lab needs to know if you are using the microfilm machine. They don't need to know what you're using it *for*, but they need to know that you're using it. The computer lab users need know if you are using ANSYS; they don't need to know what you're using it FOR, but they need to know that you're using it. If you approach a computer system as a collection of tools (just like the a/v lab is a collection of tools), then the need for this information becomes apparent. Your use of a given computer system affects all other users of that system, just like your use of the microfilm machine affects all the other users of the a/v lab. What's the difference? -- 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: thompson@se01.wg2.waii.com (Jim Thompson) Subject: Re: System Accounting: Fascist Tool? Message-ID: <9111271314.AA02555@se33.wg2.waii.com> Sender: thompson@se01.wg2.waii.com References: <1991Nov26.232012.2924@ms.uky.edu> Date: 27 Nov 91 13:14:08 GMT morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes: > kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > >thompson@se01.wg2.waii.com (Jim Thompson) writes: > >>I would also add that, in the interest of protecting those who aren't > >>unix-savvy, the sysadmin powers-that-be have an *obligation* to their users to > >>inform them of ps, its dangers, and how > >>to protect against them. (And probably > >>also about lpq or lpstat.) > > "dangers"? "dangers"??!! To privacy. I guess "dangers" is a bit extreme, though; perhaps "risks" would have been a better choice. But the point is the same: a careless or ignorant user can, under certain circumstances, reveal things about himself. > > The length of the list of "privacy-invading" programs/utilities continues > to amaze me. In this thread, various posters have condemned: > > -- who > -- finger > -- ps > -- lpq/lpstat > -- acctcom You implicitly lump in with these "various posters". Please. I did not condemn ps, I merely presented a few facts and (admittedly contrived) examples. I rejected, and continued to reject, the notion that ps is "privacy-invasive"; if anything, I tried to put the burden where it belongs: on those who wish to protect every bit and byte of information regarding themselves. > >b) Users should be informed of what kind of information might > >disclosed (i.e. if you signed on, when you last read mail, how much > >CPU you are using, what command you have run in the last 2 days) and > >to what kind of person (i.e. sys admins, other users, anyone on the > >Net, etc) > > Carl, you just added 5-10 pages to my policy statement with this > statement. Is it really necessary? In 15 years of working with > computers (the last 5 as a full sysadmin, with assistance experience > prior to that), I have never heard a single complaint about these > facilities. It shouldn't be necessary to add 5-10 pages to your policy statement. That is, you needn't give new users a lesson in ps, lpq, ad nauseam -- just point out the specific commands, what sort of information they reveal, refer the users to the man pages, and let them RTFM. I can appreciate that you've never had problems with these commands at UK, but remember that Carl is formulating a general statement to be used as a guide for making policy at any given academic computing site (correct me if I've got this wrong, please, Carl). As such, I think that the statement should include a recommendation that users be informed of the privacy issues. Users have a right to know, up front, what information about them might be disclosed, and how -- even if they have no choice about some of it, for example their real name being associated with their uid via finger. -- Jim Thompson - thompson@se01.wg2.waii.com | Conjunction Junction, Western Geophysical Exploration Products | what's your function? Houston, Texas | ------------------- From: treeves@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Terry N Reeves) Subject: I am from ACS at OSU Message-ID: <1991Nov25.165500.11219@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Sender: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Distribution: usa Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 16:55:00 GMT Well, I bet that subject got some attention! I can hear the boos and hisses from here! DISCLAIMER This is not ACS, just me. All of this is purely personal opionion. No one "made" me say that or even asked me to. I just think its a good idea, as I think I am in somewhat hostlile territory. Please don't bother defending yourself - if you feel the need you are too sensitive :-) First here is proof that we are READING this discussion and that we CAN post. Ugly rumours about censorship at ACS are ridiculous. Of course we can't talk about (well, you know, what can't talk about... ) [recurses infinately] that's the law. Now with regards to policy. A question. I would like to read an actual approved, in force for a fairly long time, policy of a university that this group, especially Karl, approves of, or mostly approves of. Note it must be in actual use. Theoretical policies are untested and somewhat well, theoretical. Anyone got one by ftp or post here or e-mail to me? This is a sincere question folks not some sort of cynical remark. I have been reading here since may/june and I think such things have been mentioned and I want to find one. I am not going to defend ACS policy. Those at the top have choosen not to (if they are reading this, and I think they are). There has been no announcement to this effect folks, they just have not done it. I could answer some attacks, I might agree with others, but frankly I don't really think it's my place. I am not the policy maker. That's who your argument is with. Naturally, as an ACS staffer it is part of my job to point out ways we can improve, and work for better service to the campus. I do have some suggestions of my own about policy. But rather than post them here I will make them internally. It would be rather odd, I think, for me to give them a first airing here, or even post them at all when the people I need to persuade are all in the building with me. Opinion - can't prove it - but my experience is ACS is filled with people who strongly believe in electronic freedom, open computing, call it what you will. We brought usenet & e-mail to the masses here. We fought for it, we are fighting for it. Some people regarded as villains here are trying hard to make computing more open and useful on campus. The major limitation is money - or put another way people at the very top of osu & state gov't have to see computing as basic part of education. We do. -- _____________________________________________________________________________ | That's my story, and I'm sticking to it! | |_____________________________________________________________________________| | Public Sites micro software support | treeves@magnus.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU | ------------------- From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) Subject: Alt.sex flap at U of Iowa Message-ID: <9300@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> Date: 25 Nov 91 18:27:40 GMT Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Today's Daily Iowan, Monday Nov. 25, 1991, has joined the fray. On the top of page 3A, on the left, is the headline "UI Computer Files Contain Pornography", followed by the same kind of incisive reporting of the alt.sex newsgroups that we have become used to from the print media. The article does mention that the "pornography" is carried by USENET, but no mention is made of other material on USENET. The article indicates that the U of I computers contain "over 70,000 pages" of pornography, which is nonsense -- this is roughly the total number of postings that have been delivered to Iowa's machines over USENET, but nobody at the DI seems to have noticed that things get deleted on a regular basis. Appearing as it does on top of the recent flap about movie Taxi Zum Klo, this will certainly put more pressure on the University of Iowa to censor things on campus. In the case of the movie, the local county attourny has decided that it is "non pornographic but one scene contains depiction of sexual exploitation of a minor, and that scene must be edited out in any showing of the movie." One consequence of the Taxi Zum Klo flap is that the state legislature will probably review the current exemptions from the "sexual exploitation of a minor" laws that applies to educational institutions and public libraries. As currently written, the Iowa law allows for educational use of such material in such institutions, and the law may be rewritten to forbid this. (So, if I wanted to teach a course on the impact of pornography on the sexual development of children in modern western society, I wouldn't be able to use these materials under the proposed changes to the law.) Doug Jones jones@cs.uiowa.edu ------------------- From: U15289@UICVM.uic.edu Subject: On "Personal Use" restrictions Message-ID: <199111252159.AA14818@eff.org> Sender: U15289@UICVM.uic.edu Date: 25 Nov 91 20:06:41 GMT In an October 26 posting to comp-academic-freedom-talk, Carl Kadie commented on the policies of the SEASnet system at UCLA: >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. I strongly disagree that limitations on the use of games, _qua_ games, should be extended to other "noncommercial personal use" (hereinafter referred to as "NPU"); I find the prospect of blanket restrictions on NPU _per se_ even more disquieting. Admittedly, more of an argument can be made for such a policy on the in-house system of an individual academic unit (which it is my impression that SEASnet is, on the assumption of it being an acronym for "School of Engineer- ing and Applied Science" or something to that effect) than on a system run for general use by an all-campus computer center. It is also possible to enforce such a policy more efficaciously in the former case than in the latter. (But, as I shall discuss below, all-campus installations are not immune to having blanket NPU restrictions at least nominally in effect.) It gives me pause, as I think it should to all readers of this mailing list, that posting, or reading the postings of others, to comp-academic-freedom -talk itself would apparently be a technical violation of such policies, inasmuch as it presumably is not being done in the service of specific course- work or research. The same goes for reading, or posting to, the lion's share of newsgroups on USENET/NETNEWS, as well as--of course--much if not most email correspondence, and the other examples which Carl cites at the end of his own comment on the SEASnet policy. As mentioned above, broad prohibitions on NPU do occur at all-campus computer centers. For instance: >The following uses of computers supported by Academic Computing Services, >including public microcomputers, are specifically approved: > [...] >D. Personal computing for the improvement of computing literacy and not asso- > ciated with a scheduled class. Such "improvement of computing literacy" > must be consistent with Loyola's mission of education, research, and > health care. _This category of use must not be used to justify activities > such as personal correspondence of personal business._ [Emphasis added.] > > This means that once a computer skill associated with a resource is > learned, that resource may only be used for instruction or research. (Source: Loyola University of Chicago, "Information Systems Computing Policy, Policy No. 1: Authorized Uses of Public Academic Computing Facilities," 1984) At my own institution, a recent document states that account suspension is possible for "frequent frivolous use of computing resources," which is enumer- ated separately from "playing computer games," also given as a cause of action. (Source: University of Illinois at Chicago Computer Center, "Penalties for Misuse of UIC Computing Resources," 1991) This presents serious questions of vagueness and overbreadth, over and above any specific chilling effects it may have--at least in theory--on benign noncurricular uses of an all-campus system. To be sure, the policy Carl seemed to be speaking favorably of simply posited a moral responsibility for those using a system for noncurricular applications at a given moment to yield to those desiring to use it for curricular ones, in the event of a shortage of available workstations, rather than declaring noncurricular uses actionable _per se_. Even so, I think it is crucial to draw a distinction between those activities that have an argu- able nexus to the communication of ideas and those that do not (by which I refer principally to computer games). I remain uncomfortable with any formal policy statement which draws invidious distinctions between activities in the former group which do not happen to have a clear curricular connection, and those that do, at least in the case of systems intended for general campus use. Mitch Pravatiner Internet: U15289@uicvm.uic.edu ------------------- From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: On "Personal Use" restrictions Message-ID: <1991Nov25.223548.15641@eff.org> References: <199111252159.AA14818@eff.org> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 22:35:48 GMT One small clarification of my suggestion to UCLA. The UCLA SEASnet policy says: "Any personal ... use of SEASnet equipment is prohibited." And, "Various games are available on the system. however, you must not play games when other users need a terminal for any other activity." I said: "The policy could be improved by applying the "game policy" to all noncommercial personal use." In other words, instead of banning nongame, noncommercial personal use, SEASnet should at least allow nongame, noncommercial personal use on the same basis that it allows game playing. In other, other words, I was not suggesting *adding* a restriction; I was suggesting *removing* a restriction. - 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: declan@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Declan J. Fleming) Subject: Gaming Message-ID: <1991Nov27.215410.18938@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 21:54:10 GMT Hi. I manage 8 student computing sites with about 500 machines (PC, MAC, NeXT) and I'm having more and more trouble with gamers, especially IRCers and MUDers. Our policy states that the sites are primarily for academic work. If all the machines are full when a person comes in to do a paper, all the gamers are booted for a period of time. This is getting to be a major headache for my staff. How do you all handle it? Declan J. Fleming U of Ill ------------------- From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: CAF bibliography Message-ID: <1991Nov24.005758.19865@eff.org> Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1991 00:57:58 GMT ================= bibliography ================= This is an unorganized list of books related to Computers and Academic Freedom. In the future, this list should be organized by * putting listings in standard form * referencing CAF notes that reference these books * annotating the listing with brief comments --------------------- ACLU's Handbook on the _Rights of Authors and Artists_ (1984). ACLU handbook _The Rights of Teachers_, revised edition, by David Rubin, 1984 _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D. Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). _School Discipline and Student Rights: an advocate's manual_ by Paul Weckstein, revised edition, 1982, Center for Law and Education. _The Redefinition of the Exclusionary Rule as to Student Procedural Due Process in High Education_. A monograph from the Office of the General Counsel [of Southern Illinois University] by Dr. Larry L. French, General Counsel, 1977. _Procedural due process guidelines for disciplinary hearings resulting in suspension or expulsion in higher education_ by Ernest T. Buchanan III. Published by Education/Law Research Associates, 1972 _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer, et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. _In the Interest of Children_, R. Mnookin (Ed.), Franklin E. Zimring and Rayman L. Solomon (Contrib. Authors). _The First Amendment Book_ by Robert J. Wagmam ACLU's Handbook _The Right of Students_ 3rd Edition by Janet. R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. _Due Process for School Officials: A Guide for the Conduct of Administrative Proceedings_ by Edgar H. Bittle (1986) _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. _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center (1985,1988) _50 Ways to Fight Censorship & Important Facts to Know about Censors_ by Dave Marsh. Published by Thunder's Mouth Press in 1991> _American Library Laws_ (5th edition) _Cuckoos Egg_ _Prelude to Foundation_ _American Psycho_ _The Joy of Lesbian Sex_ _SpyCatcher_ _Libraries, Erotica, and Pornography_ _Censorship, Libraries, and the Law_ _A Book of French Quotations_, Norbert Dorothy L. Sayers, _Busman's Honeymoon_ _Constitutional Law_ by William Lockhart _The Dictionary of Computer Terms_ (2nd Ed.), by Barron's _Anarchist Handbook_ _The Freedom to Publish_ edited by Haig A. Bosmajian. Published by Neal-Schuman Publishers 1989 _The Freedom to Read Books, Films, and Plays_ edited by Haig A. Bosmajian _Freedom of Religion_ edited by Haig A. Bosmajian _Freedom of Expression edited by Haig A. Bosmajian _Academic Freedom_ edited by Haig A. Bosmajian ALA Policy Manual _Intellectual Freedom Manual_ Third Edition, published by the American Library Association. 343.730998P782T POOL, ITHIEL DE SOLA, 1917- TECHNOLOGIES OF FREEDOM$ CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 82-24498 Academic Freedom and Catholic Higher Education by Annarelli. Policy Documents and Reports by the AAUP KF4225.A59B45 BICKEL, ROBERT D. THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COURTS$ ASHEVILLE, N.C. 79-107650 379.14C686 THE COLLEGE STUDENT AND THE COURTS $ASHEVILLE, N.C 76-648745 1929528 1 ADDED: 790609 SER 379.1402H71L HOLLANDER, PATRICIA. LEGAL HANDBOOK FOR EDUCATORS $BOULDER, COLO 77-26092 PN4748.D44S871989 SUSSMAN, LEONARD R. POWER, THE PRESS AND THE TECHNOLOGY OF FREEDOM$ NEW YORK, N.Y. 89-16806 KF2750.G67X GORA, JOEL M. THE RIGHTS OF REPORTERS$ NEW YORK 74-21647 3504663 1974 1 ADDED: 890304 025.21878R272C REICHMAN, HENRY, 1947- CENSORSHIP AND SELECTION$ CHICAGO, ILL. 88-16815 025.213B393 MICHIGAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION. INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM COMMITTEE. BEFORE AND AFTER THE CENSOR$ MICHIGAN QA76.9M65F671990 FORESTER, TOM. COMPUTER ETHICS$ OXFORD, UK 89-28265 581358 1990 1 ADDED: 901227 016.37914T43S TICE, TERRENCE N STUDENT RIGHTS, DECISIONMAKING, AND THE LAW $WASHINGTON 77-985494 KF4175.Z9F55 FISCHER, LOUIS,1924- TEACHERS AND THE LAW$ NEW YORK 80-23394 515737 1981 2 ADDED: 810815 KF4243.H41986 HENDRICKSON, ROBERT M. THE COLLEGE, THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE CONSUMER STUDENT$ WASHINGTON, D.C. KF4243S881983 STUDENT AFFAIRS AND THE LAW $SAN FRANCISCO 82-84204 376685 1983 1 ADDED: 840209 174P238EA PARKER, DONN B. ETHICAL CONFLICTS IN INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND BUSINESS $ WELLESLEY, MASS. 89-38890 318040 1990 1 ADDED: 910627 025.21878AM35W :AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION. OFFICE FOR INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM.: WORKBOOK FOR SELECTION POLICY WRITING$ CHICAGO Z658.U5F571984 MCCOY, RALPH E. (RALPH EDWARD), 1915- THE FIRST FREEDOM TODAY$ CHICAGO 84-461 Z658.U5F571984 MCCOY, RALPH E. (RALPH EDWARD), 1915- THE FIRST FREEDOM TODAY$ CHICAGO 84-461 *Charter 19 book *interlibrary loan book -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. -------------------