Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 01, No. 41 [Week ending December 8, 1991 [The guest editor this week is Bob Solon. 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 summary of the article and not necessarily my opinion. =============================================================== Articles 1-4 concern computer policies at various universities. 1. A staff librarian at the U. of Newcastle Libraries reports and comments on policy currently under discussion regarding acceptable-use and access policies for their computers. In particular, the policy "You may not use the University's computing facilities to send obscene, offensive, bogus, harassing, or illegal messages" generated much concern, as did the proposal to limit student access to AARNet (Australian equivalent of Usenet) only to research or study purposes. There was little concensus about the validity of the new policies in the Newcastle user community. <43858C4B08C002AE@cc.newcastle.edu.au> 2. Carl Kadie defends his (from an earlier article) criticisms of aspects of the University of Iowa computing policies, specifically: "Sending rude, obscene, or harassing material via any electronic mail or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden." Several court cases are cited in support of the position that "It is not the job of the government to enforce concepts of courtesy, cooperation, and common sense with respect to expression." <1991Dec3.045840.18238@eff.org> 3. According to a Duke University faculty member, who received his information from a College Press Service paraphrase, the University of Washington stopped carrying "...a computer channel containing pornograhic materials...." presumably alt.sex.pictures. Apparently the University stopped this group in response to a negative article about to be printed in the Seattle _Post-Intelligencer_. <393@news.duke.edu> 4. A member of the Oxford University (UK) astrophysics department reports on the the unavailability of the alt.sex.* hierarchy and some other parts of the alt.* hierarchy at his university. He also believes that the situation at Oxford is similar throughout the UK. <1991Nov27.110018.3066@vax.oxford.ac.uk> Articles 5-8 discuss issues of user privacy vis-a-vis computers. 5. A sysadmin explains some positive uses for the ps command, and defends generally the idea that "...if you don't have anything to hide, you have no reason for privacy" in the context of computer systems. He also advocates educational "cross-pollination" and productivity from relatively open systems, especially in an educational environment. <1991Nov27.031621.4433@usl.edu> 6. A sysadmin summarizes a previous post about privacy on computer systems that says that the free flow of ideas is not the same as the free flow of "more mundane personal data." He then contrasts this position with his own, i.e., the difference between protected information as that "for which a legitimate use has not been found" and protected information as "all information which is not inherently sensitive" but excluding email, which has an "expectation of privacy." <1991Dec3.004350.10326@usl.edu> 7. A user continues the privacy discussion by critiquing the idea tha t says that just because something is not technically unconstitutional, that it is acceptable. He posits that free speech and privacy are not necessarily incompatible, indicts the "if you have nothing to hide, you have no reason for privacy" idea as a slippery-slope to erosion of individual rights in general, and argues that "there will always be tension between privacy and he free flow when it comes to certain kinds of information. " <199112042116.AA08975@eff.org> 8. Another user indicates his own views on privacy in computer systems. He believes that "...the contents of an academic computer, other than directory information and any publicly posted material, are private unless their owners or creators choose to make them public." He also suggests that such a policy should also pertain to students and staff, as well as faculty. <199112050610.AA19751@eff.org> Articles 9-12 contain list various resources useful in discussions of computers and academic freedom. 9. Listed is a bibliography on e-mail privacy, reposted with permission from the researcher. <1991Dec2.161917.2116@darwin.ntu.edu.au> 10. The various files that are available from the CAF archive are listed, along with instructions on how to retrieve them and short summaries of each subject heading. <1991Dec2.213719.6458@eff.org> 11. A list of free speech resources that are available from the CAF law archive are summarized and explained. <1991Dec2.025652.9833@eff.org> 12. A student lists legal resources available online from the Sydney University Law School archives. <1991Dec1.121032.2094@darwin.ntu.edu.au> Bob Solon, bsolon@dsac.dla.mil Guest Editor ] In this issue: ULGSM@brolga 189 U. of Newcastle policies Carl M. Kadie 90 >BS! John Whitehead 30 U. Washington stops feed of alt.sex.pix clements@vax 40 Censorship in Oxford was <>sgroups CENSORED in Cincinnati Eric Lee Green 72 >System Accounting: Fascist Tool? Eric Lee Green 104 >On privacy U15289@UICVM 137 Positivism, privacy, and the flow of information Dean Gottehrer 35 > neely_mp@darwin 178 Privacy Bibliography Carl M. Kadie 161 FAQ: archive Carl M. Kadie 310 >Mark Law ... 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: ULGSM@brolga.newcastle.edu.au Subject: U. of Newcastle policies Message-ID: <43858C4B08C002AE@cc.newcastle.edu.au> Sender: ULGSM@brolga.newcastle.edu.au Date: 6 Dec 91 22:00:00 GMT I have been reading the Computers and Academic Freedom (news version) for some time now, with great interest, but without being sure that it was all that relevant to my own institution. However, on 21 November 1991, in vol. 1 no. 39, Carl M. Kadie commented: > It looks like Boston University and Ohio State University will need to > cut their connections to on-line catalogs. The on-line catalogs also > might violate the restrictions of the Computer Science Department at > the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Newcastle's > University Computing Services, and James Madison University. (I'm > enclosing the relevant parts of the polices.) ... > The University of Newcastle's University Computing Services says: > "You may not use the University's computing facilities to send ... > offensive ... messages." [ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/widener/newcastleu] This was the first time that I, as a user of the University of Newcastle's computing services, had heard of this policy. The University of Newcastle Computer Users Forum met on 5 December 1991 to discuss various issues, including: > 2. USE OF COMPUTING FACILITIES > > A copy of the conditions for the use of computing facilities in the > University is enclosed. This document has been endorsed by Academic > Senate and Council as the "plain English" regulations for the use of > computing facilities by members of the University. > > 3. LIMITS ON STUDENT ACCESS TO AARNet > > In view of the escalating costs of operation of AARNet and, more > particularly, the incidence of abuse of AARNet by 'hackers' wishing > to enter off-campus computing systems, the Computing Committee has > recommended to Academic Senate that students not have access to > AARNet unless it is prescribed for their course of study or research > program. I attended this meeting, along with 40-50 others. Readers of Computers and Academic Freedom may be interested in my (biased) report on the meeting. I think that these two issues (the conditions for the use of the computing facilities, and student access to AARNet, the Australian equivalent of INTERNET) are related. Certainly, the discussion of the issues at the Computer Users Forum covered a lot of the same ground. However, I will discuss them in seriatim. Use of Computing Facilities --------------------------- The conditions on the use of computing facilities which generated most discussion were: > Failure to abide by the following terms will be treated as misconduct > and may result in disciplinary action including denial of access to > the facilities concerned. In particular, if, in the opinion of the > Director, University Computing Services, you have failed to abide by > these terms, you may be denied access to computing facilities or to > the University's communications network. ... > You may not use the University's computing facilities to send obscene, > offensive, bogus, harassing or illegal messages. It was made clear in the discussion of the former that this meant that the Director, University Computing Services, had the power to fail a student by denying him/her access to computing facilities. Some people at the forum expressed their concern that the conditions had not developed a mechanism to deal with breaches: their concern was that they might spend considerable effort in finding evidence of a "hacker", only to find their effort wasted and the hacker allowed to escape without punishment. I raised the issue of the ban on "obscene, offensive, bogus, harassing or illegal messages". Australia does not have an equivalent of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; but it does have a long tradition of democracy, freedom of speech, and academic freedom. I was therefore surprised that several people thought that these restrictions were reason- able. However, the Chairperson of the Forum, Bruce Cheek, said that he thought legal advice could be sought of this condition. I would think that the condition should be confined to "bogus" and "harassing" messages, and that these should be narrowly defined. In the past, many works of literature have been banned (in Australia and else- where) as "obscene" - works such as James Joyce's _Ulysses_ and D.H. Lawrence's _Lady_Chatterly's_Lover_, which are now studied in universities like the University of Newcastle. The word "offensive" is far too broad - "offensive" to whom? Many people find the truth offensive. At one time, the Catholic Church found the theory that the Earth rotates around the Sun offensive; and today, some people find the Darwinian theory of evolution offensive. The word "illegal" is also too broad. I am sure that this is not a com- prehensive list, but in New South Wales a message might be illegal because it is: * seditious * in contempt of court * in contempt of Parliament * in contempt of the Industrial Relations Commission * racist * against the Public Sector Management Act (N.S.W.), which forbids comments on departmental policy by public servants. All these messages can be punished by the appropriate court or tribunal. It should not be up the Director, University Computing Services, to give a second punishment to (for example) a school teacher and part-time university student who criticises a policy of the New South Wales Department of School Education on one of the University's computers. Limits on Student Access to AARNet ---------------------------------- The University od Newcastle has decided to limit access to AARNet (the Australian Academic and Research Network, which is the Australian equivalent to, and linked with, the INTERNET). It will be available to only those students who need it for their study or research. Various reasons have been given for this, including: * Increasing costs of AARNet * The danger of hackers using AARNet * The use of AARNet requires use of University of Newcastle computing facilities, which are scarce resources provided for University purposes. The question of the costs of AARNet is a bit of a red herring, as for the universities belonging to AARNet the cost is fixed regardless of the use made of AARNet. There was some discussion of AARNet security. The analogy was made of a road with cars and houses on it. Everyone can use the road, and it is the responsibility of the owners of the cars and houses to make sure that they are locked if they don't want others to use them. I argued that the policy showed a very limited view of university education. The policy seems to be based on the idea that students should confine them- selves to what is taught in their lectures and read only those textbooks which have been prescribed for them to read. I made the analogy with the university library. It would be easy to implement a policy that students may only use books which have been prescribed for their courses; and indeed such a policy might have some advantages, because it would mean that researchers would be more likely to find the books and journals they need in the library. However, all users of the library can have access to all material in the library: staff may be able to borrow books longer than students, and staff may be able (in our case) to borrow journals, while students may only use the journals in the library; but there in nothing in the library that cannot be used by students, regardless of whether it is relevant to their course. The policy is difficult to implement: it had occurred to me that it might be possible to implement it by restricting use of commands like FTP, MAIL and TELNET to certain users, but these can be used to link the various computers within the university. Thus an English major or a Sociology major can FTP or TELNET to the Engineering computer or the Mathematics computer within the university, but cannot (according to this policy) use the computer systems to link to systems and people in other universities which might be related to his/her interests. One concern I have is that this ban on student access to AARNet might be in a selective way: it might only be implemented if a student posts a message to an external newsgroup which criticises or embarrasses the University of Newcastle. Conclusion ---------- These matters have not yet been finally resolved in my opinion, as there has been some opposition to the restrictive policies of the University of Newcastle. One person commented towards the end of the two hour meeting of the Computer Users Forum: "30% of us strongly support this policy, 30% are strongly opposed to it, and 40% want to go to lunch." So far, there has been no opinions expressed on these matters by students of the Uni- versity of Newcastle, and there are not likely to be any for a while, as we are just starting our long vacation now, and students will not be back until February 1992. Giles Martin Deputy Technical Services Librarian (Monographs) University of Newcastle Libraries AARNet/INTERNET: ulgsm@cc.nu.oz.au I wish that these opinions were the opinions of the University of Newcastle, but they are not. ------------------- . From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: BS! Message-ID: <1991Dec3.045840.18238@eff.org> References: <1991Dec2.040913.5347@news.iastate.edu> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1991 04:58:40 GMT (A second response) kadie@eff.org, paraphrasing an article by kadie@eff.org, writes: >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> S2.RSB@isumvs.iastate.edu (Bob Boston) writes: > The following guidelines govern ethical computer use at Iowa State > University: [...] > # Sending rude, obscene or harassing material via any electronic mail > or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden. [...] >Please note that the existing guidelines refer only to "University Computing >Facilities." These facilities are owned or paid for by Iowa State University >and the Iowa Board of Regents, not by the students and teachers who use the >facilities. Students and teachers who use their own computers and public >networks like GEnie and CompuServe are free to be as rude as they wish. But >if they use computers and networks supported by Iowa State they must abide by >the guidelines established by the owner of those computers and networks. [...] >IMHO, saying "Rudeness is not a crime" is putting the emPHAsis on the wrong >sylLABle. Any action not defined as a crime is permissable? In other words I >can spit in your face and seduce your wife without worrying you? I can call >you a motherf****r without raising your ire? >It may be that rudeness is *the* crime in reasoned discourse, for it usually >involves an attack on the person rather than an argument against the person's >ideas. In thinking so much about legalities, you may have forgotten more basic >concepts of courtesy, cooperation and common sense. >Bob Boston >Writing Labs Director >English Department >Iowa State University [...] It is not the job or place of the government to enforce concepts of courtesy, cooperation and common sense with respect to expression. That should and is done with social pressure. In _Hustler Magazine v. Falwell_, the Supreme 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." To paraphrase the ACLU handbook on the _Rights of Teachers_: 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." Also, of interest are two recent federal district decisions. In _UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin_ and _Doe v. U. of Michican, the courts struck down campus speech codes saying that they violated the First Amendment. (_UWM Post_ involved email.) The full text of both decisions is available via anonymous ftp from directory ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law. The _UWM Post_ decision concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed. The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the screening which our Constitution demands." -- 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: jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead) Subject: U. Washington stops feed of alt.sex.pix Message-ID: <393@news.duke.edu> Date: 19 Nov 91 21:51:01 GMT According to an item in the Duke _Chronicle_, which paraphrased a College Press Service release, the University of Washington "recently terminated a computer channel containing pornographic materials". I assume this is a reference to alt.sex.pictures. These pictures "could be accessed freely by students and faculty" and they could be "easily copied" to other computers. And the reason why the University stopped it? Were minors looking at the pictures? Were they obscene? Did the University previously ban pornographic magazines from dorm rooms? No, the Seattle _Post-Intelligencer_ was about to write an article about the "channel's" existence at the University. University officials cut the feed hours before the article was to appear. I haven't heard anything else on this -- are there other details or results of this action? Perhaps someone more familiar with this can fill us in... This story made it sound like it was a UW-only "channel". There were no references in it that any other university (or Duke for that matter) had access to it as well! -- ________________________________________________________________________ | John jfw@neuro.duke.edu Duke University Medical Center | | Whitehead jfw@well.sf.ca.us Department of Neurobiology | |________________________________________ Durham, North Carolina ________| ------------------- . From: clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk Subject: Censorship in Oxford was Re: SEX pic newsgroups CENSORED in Cincinnati Message-ID: <1991Nov27.110018.3066@vax.oxford.ac.uk> Date: 27 Nov 1991 11:00:18 GMT In article <1991Nov15.233915.306@ucbeh.san.uc.edu>, temple@ucbeh.san.uc.edu writes: > I logged onto my Vax account today and went to, as I am bound to do, > the newsgroup reader on our Vax (VMS). Sometimes, old or bogus > newsgroups are deleted when I first run the program. This is normal > and everybody has seen this before. However, tonight when I opened the > reader, I saw this: > > Old newsgroup: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, deleted from NEWSRC > Old newsgroup: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.blondes, deleted from NEWSR > Old newsgroup: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d, deleted from NEWSRC > Old newsgroup: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.female, deleted from NEWSRC > Old newsgroup: alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless, deleted from NEWSRC > Old newsgroup: alt.sex.pictures, deleted from NEWSRC > Old newsgroup: alt.sex.pictures.d, deleted from NEWSRC > Old newsgroup: alt.sex.pictures.female, deleted from NEWSRC > You think you've got problems? Here in Oxford, and I think the UK generally, we have never even seen these groupd once! And alt.pictures.bin got deleted here a few weeks ago. We also do not get, among others... ALL of the alt.sex hierarchy alt.drugs alt.backrubs (or has this died???) While the pictures groups do take a lot of space, the general discussion lines don't take too much. If space was a problem I would expect us not to establish new groups, and we certainly do take new groups. I think this is a general UK problem, but it is very annoying... ================================================================================ Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department ================================================================================ clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax | Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de dlc @ uk.ac.ox.astro | Saint Germain... ================================================================================ ------------------- . From: elg@usl.edu (Eric Lee Green) Subject: Re: System Accounting: Fascist Tool? Message-ID: <1991Nov27.031621.4433@usl.edu> Date: 27 Nov 91 03:16:21 GMT Article-I.D.: usl.1991Nov27.031621.4433 References: <9111252053.AA09129@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> Sender: anon@usl.edu (Anonymous NNTP Posting) In article <9111252053.AA09129@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu> brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu (Brack) writes: >In article <1991Nov25.162134.6865@eff.org> you write: >: 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". >: >: ------- > 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 Well: I agree, that there should be a per-process option which restricts what information is available to "ps". HOWEVER: here's something that actually happened: A person ran MIT C-Scheme. This is a huge memory hog that has a 4 megabyte memory image. He typed (quit) to exit the Scheme environment. He wasn't Unix-adept, so he didn't know what "job stopped xyzzzy" meant... he assumed that it meant that Scheme had died and gone away. He then edited his Scheme file (sure, he should have control-Z'ed, but Unix neophyte, remember?) and then ran Scheme again. Note: Now we have TWO schemes running, taking up 8 megabytes of swap space. Repeat several times. Get message, "Out of swap space" when try to spawn a process. I typed ps -augxw at my terminal, trying to figure out what the heck was going on, and noticed all these Schemes. I noted the tty that this was being run from, and wandered over there and let him know what he was doing wrong. Now, who did I harm? Seems to me that yes, I could have reported it to an administrator... but I'd still be waiting for someone to kill all those old processes off :-). > 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. I'm of the old hacker school. I don't believe in either privacy or administrators :-). The way I figure it, if you don't have anything to hide, you have no reason for privacy. Now, I'll agree that in a corporate environment privacy is a necessity. But this is the academic environment, built around free flow of information. Restrict that free flow of information, and you get less productivity, less cross-pollination of ideas between people, less of what universities are set up to do. > > 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, knowing what the runaway process is allows me to go over to that person's terminal and say "hey, did you know that you were using 90% of the CPU?". It also allows me to go straight to the operator and tell him exactly what is going on... note that this guy in the machine room isn't a professional, probably just a graduate assistant, and expecting him to know his way around the system is like expecting a blind man to see :-). (In other words, expecting him to be able to figure out how to solve the problem all by himself just isn't realistic). -- -- Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70506 (318) 989-8950 Internet: elg@elgamy.raidernet.com UUCP: uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg "It's never too late for a happy childhood" -- The Doctor ------------------- . From: elg@usl.edu (Eric Lee Green) Subject: Re: On privacy Message-ID: <1991Dec3.004350.10326@usl.edu> Date: 3 Dec 91 00:43:50 GMT References: <199112022109.AA05709@eff.org> Sender: anon@usl.edu (Anonymous NNTP Posting) In article <199112022109.AA05709@eff.org> U15289@UICVM.uic.edu writes: >In article <1991Nov27.031621.4433@usl.edu>, elg@usl.edu (Eric Lee Green) says: >>The way I figure it, if you don't have anything to hide, >>you have no reason for privacy. Now, I'll agree that in a corporate >>environment privacy is a necessity. But this is the academic environment, >>built around free flow of information. Restrict that free flow of information, >>and you get less productivity, less cross-pollination of ideas between >>people, less of what universities are set up to do. > > To me, at least, this sounds uncomfortably like the great words of Edwin >Meese, to the effect that a person not formally charged with a crime is not a >suspect, and by implication need not enjoy the full protection of the Bill of >Rights. You are confusing "free speech" with "privacy". Note that I mentioned "free flow of information", which implies freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is explicitly written into the Bill of Rights. Privacy outside of the confines of your home is NOT explictly written into the Bill of Rights, though the Supreme Court has ruled from time to time that certain privacy rights are "implied" by various phraces in the Bill of Rights. I suppose that I agree with Richard Stallman when it comes to system security and "what is appropriate in an academic research environment". He holds that all information in the system should be accessible to all. The "system" being an academic research system, that is, and not, say, academic records, which are protected by law (note, by law, NOT by the Constitution). Knowing who is logged in and doing what is one of those useful pieces of information to someone interested in the free flow of ideas, because it allows me to know who has similar interests to me and who is working in the same areas as I am. Keeping that information secret would impede the cross-pollination that often results in innovation, by reducing the flow of useful information. Similarly, removing "finger" would mean that I couldn't get the full name, office number, and office phone number of those people doing things on the computer that I am interested in. "Privacy", in these two instances at least, would definitely impede the free flow of information that helps keep the academic environment innovative. It seems to me that contemporary American society is making a disquiet >ing evolutionary shift toward what Jeane Kirkpatrick, of all people, has called >the "institutionalization of distrust;" or away from a "presumption of liberty" >to a "presumption of regulation." Both within and outside the context of com- I agree. The fact that some people on this group object to the "finger" command and the "what" command under Unix is a perfect example of that. Removing the ability of someone to find out who other users are and what they are doing implies that you distrust this person and don't trust him to deal wisely with the information (e.g., maybe use the information to crank-call someone rather than to get in touch with someone doing your kind of work). Similarly, many people seem to distrust what Americans would do with perfect liberty, and impose regulation in order that these nasty Americans don't do "nasty things" with that liberty. >one, he seems to gloss over the distinction between the real or imagined phen- >omenon of institutional privacy (a term apparently coined in a 1985 opinion by >then-appellate judge Antonin Scalia), and the very real (if severely beleagur- >ed) phenomenon of individual privacy. I submit that individual privacy is much more threatened by credit-reporting agencies and "child abuser databases" than by anything that corporations do with equipment that they own. I can choose to leave an employer who does not respect my privacy. On the other hand, information in databases such as the above is available to thousands of institutional subscribers, sharing my personal buying habits with thousands of people who I don't want to know about my life, and if the information so shared is wrong, it is very difficult to get that information changed or deleted. There are other things that corporations do that violate your right to do what you will during your off-hour times -- e.g., see the oilfield case where they ordered some men to lose weight and fired those men who didn't -- but this is totally different from what happens on office equipment during office time. >individuals, in a variety of ways. With respect to the other issue, the flow >of what information, he seems to be confusing the free flow of _ideas_--some- >thing all of us presumably would endorse--with the free (overly so, in the >judgment of some)--flow of more mundane personal data, without regard to whose It seems to me that there's an important issue here: what constitutes "protected" information? You hold that protected information consists of all information for which a legitimate use has not been found. I hold that protected information consists of all information which is not inherently sensitive. With a slight digression for EMAIL, where there is an "expectation of privacy" (else it would be posted to a public newsgroup). We're at a deadlock here. I hold that facilitating a free flow of information in an academic environment requires making as much information as possible freely available (with the exception of EMAIL and "sensitive" info). You hold that we should not make information available until we find a valid use for it. In other words, if I want to find out whether Dennis is a user on this system or not, you'd make me want to go through the step of detirmining whether this is a valid use of the information in the "passwd" file before considering that yes, maybe this isn't a violation of Dennis's privacy. Meanwhile, I'd have to try to track down Dennis (he's never in his office) instead of simply sending him some EMAIL... -- -- Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70506 (318) 989-8950 Internet: elg@elgamy.raidernet.com UUCP: uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg "It's never too late for a happy childhood" -- The Doctor ------------------- . From: U15289@UICVM.uic.edu Subject: Positivism, privacy, and the flow of information Message-ID: <199112042116.AA08975@eff.org> Sender: U15289@UICVM.uic.edu Date: 4 Dec 91 16:35:09 GMT >In article <1991Dec3.004350.10326@usl.edu>, elg@usl.edu (Eric Lee Green) says (in response to my response to his November 27 posting): >You are confusing "free speech" with "privacy". Note that I mentioned >"free flow of information", which implies freedom of speech. Freedom of >speech is explicitly written into the Bill of Rights. Privacy outside of >the confines of your home is NOT explictly written into the Bill of Rights, >though the Supreme Court has ruled from time to time that certain privacy >rights are "implied" by various phraces in the Bill of Rights. To me, this smacks of the same sort of positivist reasoning for which recent nominees to the Supreme Court have become notorious. The fact that certain invasions of privacy are technically not unconstitutional, or even contrary to statute, does not make them any less a miscarriage of justice. As for Green's second point, "free speech" is typically _not_ incom- patible with "privacy" (though some types of published references to a person may, in fact, be invasive). Whether or not the "free flow of information" is invasive depends on what kind of information is actually flowing in a given instance. >I suppose that I agree with Richard Stallman when it comes to system >security and "what is appropriate in an academic research environment". >He holds that all information in the system should be accessible to all. If construed literally, this would include all users' files and the contents thereof, passwords, etc. Terms must be defined more specifically on this. >The "system" being an academic research system, that is, and not, say, >academic records, which are protected by law (note, by law, NOT by the >Constitution). This is another example of the same constitutional positivism I just alluded to. >Knowing who is logged in and doing what is one of those >useful pieces of information to someone interested in the free flow of >ideas, because it allows me to know who has similar interests to me >and who is working in the same areas as I am. Keeping that information >secret would impede the cross-pollination that often results in >innovation, by reducing the flow of useful information. Similarly, >removing "finger" would mean that I couldn't get the full name, office >number, and office phone number of those people doing things on the >computer that I am interested in. "Privacy", in these two instances >at least, would definitely impede the free flow of information that >helps keep the academic environment innovative. Granted, information of this sort probably is not inherently sensi- tive most of the time. The fact that one is logged on, I would not consider sensitive, nor the use of logon ID's to point to public directory information (over which, BTW, individals do--and should--have a measure of control, with respect to what items of information are disseminated in this manner, if any.) >I can choose to leave an employer who does not respect my privacy. This has been cited as a defense of the "employment at will" doctrine, and has been discredited on the grounds of the unequal power of employers and employees. >It seems to me that there's an important issue here: what constitutes >"protected" information? >You hold that protected information consists of all information for which >a legitimate use has not been found. I said nothing of the sort; nor did I say anything in my original posting, judging from my reexamination thereof a couple of minutes ago, from which that inference could reasonably be made. My attitude is actually the opposite of what Green asserts it is: that to explicitly restrict the dissemination of any given information should require a specific rationale. >I hold that protected information consists of all information which is not >inherently sensitive. This is a logical _non sequitur_. I think he's gotten his terms confused. It still remains to be seen what he really means by "protected information." >With a slight digression for EMAIL, where there is >an "expectation of privacy" (else it would be posted to a public newsgroup). A stipulation, in effect, that information that is "not inherently sensitive" can still carry an "expectation of privacy." >We're at a deadlock here. I hold that facilitating a free flow of information >in an academic environment requires making as much information as possible >freely available (with the exception of EMAIL and "sensitive" info). You >hold that we should not make information available until we find a valid use >for it. In other words, if I want to find out whether Dennis is a user on >this system or not, you'd make me want to go through the step of detirmining >whether this is a valid use of the information in the "passwd" file before >considering that yes, maybe this isn't a violation of Dennis's privacy. >Meanwhile, I'd have to try to track down Dennis (he's never in his office) >instead of simply sending him some EMAIL... There is less of a deadlock here than Green thinks, possibly arising from his misinterpretation of my position on what belongs in the "free flow of information," but having partly to do with confusion between what, for want of any better terms, I shall call the "micro" and "macro" levels of this issue. I personally have no problem with the fact of my being logged on at a given moment, or my user ID, being made known. What computing activities I am engaged in may or may not be a legitimate concern, as has recently been discussed at length in these pages. I do not, however, believe that these are things that all persons have an inalienable, _a priori_ right to know, such that it would be impossible for sysadmins to justify the failure to provide them. The more important issue, I think, goes beyond the mundane example that seems to be the ultimate driver of this debate. The categorical statement "if you don't have anything to hide, you have no reason for privacy"-- which is what set me off on this thread in the first place--carries some extremely dangerous implications for individual freedoms, and not just those of computer users. Green's other sweeping assertion, that to "Restrict [the] free flow of information [is to] get less cross-pollination of ideas between people," is less of a potential time bomb for personal freedoms, even for personal privacy, as long as it is made explicit what information is at issue. There will always be tension between privacy and the free flow when it comes to certain kinds of information. What information with potential privacy implications should be allowed to flow to whom, and for what purposes, can and should be considered only in the context of specific types of information and the possible implications of their dissemination. The rhetoric on these issues needs to be more nuanced, and needs especially to keep the differences between the micro (computational) and macro (societal) levels in view. Be all this as it may, I ruefully detect the potential for a flame war here. As such, I would encourage caf-talk readers other than Green and myself to contribute their own thoughts on these issues. Mitch Pravatiner U15289@uicvm.uic.edu ------------------- . From: FFDMG@ALASKA.BITNET (Dean Gottehrer) Subject: Re: Positivism, privacy, and the flow of information Message-ID: <199112050610.AA19751@eff.org> Sender: FFDMG%ALASKA.BITNET@CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu Date: 4 Dec 91 12:09:13 GMT Thanks, Mitch, for an invitation to join the debate. I hope we can keep this out of the flame war arena where more fire than light is created. I read the line about "if you don't have anything to hide, you have no reason for privacy" and thought it made about as much sense to me as automatically assuming that anyone who asserts his or her consitutional Fifth Amendment rights is guilty of a crime. Innocent people accused of crimes are just as entitled to the right not to respond as guilty folks are. Similarly, people with nothing to hide are also entitled to privacy. Not everything about any person's life is public. Some things are private--not because anyone of us wants to hide them, but because the Supreme Court has determined we have a right to privacy and certain parts of our lives are lived in private and not out in public for everyone to see. For much of that same reason, I think the contents of an academic computer, other than directory information and any publically posted material, are private unless their owners or creaters choose to make them public. Research that faculty conduct is not public until they make it so by publishing it in some way. Just because a faculty member has files on the academic computer does mean that everyone should have the ability to look around and read them--unless, of course, the faculty member makes them public. And for whatever my two cents are worth, I think the same privacy rights pertain to students and staff. We are not yet at the point where everything everyone owns or creates is open to anyone else to read. Does that mean a faculty member who doesn't want his research public until he chooses to publish it has something to hide? I don't think so. I would rather view it as his right to shape a work in progress, refine and polish it, until he believes it is ready to face the world. Best, Dean Gottehrer Anchorage, Alaska ------------------- . From: neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au Subject: Privacy Bibliography Message-ID: <1991Dec2.161917.2116@darwin.ntu.edu.au> Date: 2 Dec 91 07:19:17 GMT Howdy, I have been having an e-mail conversation with Stacy Veeder for several days on the topic of e-mail privacy. She mailed me this bibliography which she has compiled for two papers which she is currently writing. I post it here with permission. PS - She is interested in talking with anyone who has some views on the topic/information to share. Mark N. _______ From: SMTP%"@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:SBVEEDER@SUVM.BITNET" From: Stacy Veeder ***********************BIBLIOGRAPHY BEGINS HERE************************* Bairstow, Jeffrey, "Who Reads Your Electronic Mail?" Electronic Business (June 11, 1990), 16(11):92. Barlow, John Perry [barlow@well.sf.ca.us], "Crime and Puzzlement: Desperados of the Datasphere" (1990), Whole Earth Review (in press as of 6/91), distributed through Usenet newsgroup sci.virtual- worlds [15948.9007180105@hydra.unm.edu]. Brown, Bob, "EMA Urges Users To Adopt Policy on E-Mail Privacy," Network World (October 29, 1990), 7(44):2 (two pages). Burke, Steven, "Electronic-Mail Privacy To Be Tested in Court in Suit Against Epson," PC Week (August 20, 1990), 7(33):124. Casatelli, Christine, "Setting Ground Rules for Privacy," Comput- erworld (March 18, 1991), 25:47 (two pages). Caldwell, Bruce, "Big Brother Is Watching," Information Week (June 18, 1990), (275):34 (three pages). Caldwell, Bruce, "E-Mail Privacy: A Raw Nerve For Readers," In- formation Week (July"30, 1990), (280):52 (two pages). Caldwell, Bruce, "E-Mail Privacy Issues Raised," Information Week (August 13, 1990), (282):14 (two pages) Caldwell, Bruce, "Whose Mail Is It Anyway? Companies are Con- fronting the E-Mail Privacy Issue Head-On," Information Week (August 20, 1990), (283):53. Computer Underground Digest (November 13, 1990), 2(2.11), avail- able as sjg.warrant.CuD through anonymous ftp at eff.org and distributed through Usenet newsgroup alt.society.cu-digest. Conca, Mike [conca@handel.cs.colostate.edu], "E-Mail Privacy" (May 23, 1991), distributed as Article 45 through Usenet news" group comp.admin.policy [15110@ccncsu.colostate.edu]; also distributed through Usenet newsgroup comp.unix.admin. Davis, Fred, "Beware: 'Little Brother' May Be Reading Your Mail," PC Week (October 29, 1990), 7(43):198. Denning, Peter J., "The Internet Worm," in Denning, Peter J. (ed.), Computers Under Attack: Intruders, Worms, and Viruses (New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990), pp. 193- 200. Doty, Phil, Doctoral Student, Syracuse University School of In- formation Studies, Presentation to IST 553, June"12, 1991. Eisenberg, Ted, et al., "The Cornell Commission: On Morris and the Worm," Communications of the ACM (June 1989), 32(6):706-09 [reprinted in Denning (ed.)]. Electronic Privacy Act of 1986, P.L. 99-508 (100 Stat. 1848). Eskow, Dennis, "Lawyers Warn: Don't Back Up Your E-Mail; Anything Transmitted on E-Mail May Be Held Against You," PC Week (September 11, 1989), 6:81 (two pages). Freedom of Information Act of 1986, 5 USC 552. Higgins, Steve, "E-Mail Experts On Guard Over Security Leaks," PC Week (July 30, 1990), 7:43 (two pages). Higgins, Steve, "Emergency cc:Mail Upgrade Combats Security Breach," PC Week (April 9, 1990), 7:1 (two pages). Higgins, Steve, "Message Monitor Gives Users Eagle-Eye View of E- Mail Flow," PC Week (March 25, 1991), 8:5. Highland, Harold Joseph, "Security: If the Password's 'Anything Goes,' It's Your Loss," Government Computer News (October 29, 1990), 9(23):61 (two pages). Kadie, Carl [kadie@cs.uiuc.edu], "Computers and Academic Freedom Mailing List," available as caf through anonymous ftp at eff.org. LaPlante, Alice, "Epson E-Mail: Private or Company Information?" Infoworld (October 22, 1990), 12(43):66. "Managers 'Remain Dangerously Complacent About Computer Secu rity,'" Computergram International (October 29, 1990), (1542). Markoff, John, "Furor Erupts From Computers in Politics," The New York Times (May 4, 1990), 139:A8(N), A12(L). Miscellaneous documents, available in a single file as ncsa.email through anonymous ftp at eff.org. Miscellaneous files available through ftp eff.org (/academic sub directory). Miscellaneous messages posted to caf-talk@eff.org (through list- serv@eff.org). Miscellaneous postings distributed through Usenet newsgroup comp.admin.policy. Molloy, Maureen, "NW [Network] User Panel Takes Stand on E-Mail Privacy," Network World (November 5, 1990), 7(45):2 (two pages). Montz, Lynn B., "The Worm Case: From Indictment to Verdict," in Denning, Peter J. (ed.), Computers Under Attack: Intruders, Worms, and Viruses (New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Com- pany, 1990), pp. 260-63. Nash, Jim, "E-Mail Lawsuit Cranks Open Privacy Rights Can of Worms," Computerworld (August 13, 1990), 24:7. Nash, Jim and Harrington, Maura J., "Who Can Open E-Mail?" Com- puterworld (January 14, 1991), 25:1 (two pages). Reid, Brian, "Reflections on Some Recent Widespread Computer Break-Ins," in Denning, Peter J. (ed.), Computers Under Attack: Intruders, Worms, and Viruses (New York: Addison- Wesley Publishing Company, 1990), pp. 145-49. Rochlis, Jon A. and Eichin, Mark W., "With Microscope and Tweez- ers: The Worm from MIT's Perspective," in Denning, Peter J. (ed.), Computers Under Attack: Intruders, Worms, and Viruses (New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990), pp. 201-22. Savage, J.A., "E-Mail Bust Generates Privacy Rights Uproar," Com- puterworld (January 23, 1989), 23:2. Spafford, Eugene H., "Crisis and Aftermath," in Denning, Peter J. (ed.), Computers Under Attack: Intruders, Worms, and Viruses (New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990), pp. 223- 43. Stewart, John [jstewart@rodan.acs.syr.edu], Consultant, Syracuse University Academic Computing Services, Presentation to IST 553, June 12, 1991. Stoll, Clifford, The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage (New York: Doubleday, 1989). Scott, Karyl, "IAB To Begin Trial of Proposed E-Mail Security Standards," PC Week (March 27, 1989), 6:35 (two pages). Turner, Judith Axler, "Messages in Questionable Taste on Computer Networks Pose Thorny Problems for College Administrators," Chronicle of Higher Education (January 24, 1990), A13, A16. Steven Jackson Games' subsequent complaint against the Secret Service et al. is available as sjg.complaint through anonymous ftp at eff.org. -- Mark Neely InterNet: neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au Research Student Northern Territory Uni. Law School Darwin, NT Australia ------------------- . From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: FAQ: archive Message-ID: <1991Dec2.213719.6458@eff.org> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 21:37:19 GMT q: What files are available from the Computers and Academic Freedom archive? a: The Computers and Academic Freedom archive includes several subarchives. Each archive is described by a file named README. - Carl Annotated References All these documents are available on-line. To get them by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s): send acad-freeedom README send caf-batch README send civics README send caf-law README send library-policies README send caf-news README send other-comp-policies README send widener-collected-comp-policies README The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org (191.88.144.3) as file(s): pub/academic/README pub/academic/batch/README pub/academic/civics/README pub/academic/law/README pub/academic/library/README pub/academic/news/README pub/academic/policies/README pub/academic/widener/README Here is a description of the files: ================= README ================= Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive This is an electronic library of information about computers and academic freedom. It is available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3) in directory "pub/academic". It is also available via email. For information on email access send email to archive-server@eff.org. In the body of your note include the lines "help" and "index". For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos contract Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). ================= batch/README ================= This is a directory of notes that have been sent over the comp-academic-freedom mailing list. Each file is a list of one week's notes (in batch form). Also, see "news". ================= civics/README ================= Directory of general documents related to government. It includes the U.S. Constitution and mailing addresses for U.S. Senators and Representatives. The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/civics". For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: civics where is a list of the files that you want. File README is a detailed description of the items in the directory. ================= law/README ================= CAF Law Archive [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]] This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic freedom. It includes both case law and legislation. The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/law". For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send caf-law where is a list of the files that you want. File README is a detailed description of the items in the directory. For more information or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). ================= library/README ================= Library Policy Archive [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]] This is an on-line collection of library policy statements. It includes the American Library Association's Freedom To Read statement and the ALA Library Bill of Rights. (The ALA material is made available by permission of the American Library Association.) The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/library". For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send library-policies where is a list of the files that you want. File README is a detailed description of the items in the directory. For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). ================= news/README ================= This is a directory of all issues of the Computers and Academic Freedom News. A full list of abstracts is available in file "abstracts". The special best-of-the-month issues are named with their month, for example, "June". ================= policies/README ================= Computer Policy and Critiques Archive [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]] This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools and networks. The collection also includes critiques of some of the policies. The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/policies". For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send other-comp-policies where is a list of the files that you want. File README is a detailed description of the items in the directory. For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains additional policies (but not critiques). ================= widener/README ================= This directory is a mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*. It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory "policies". -- 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: Mark Law ... Message-ID: <1991Dec2.025652.9833@eff.org> References: <9112020135.AA20464@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1991 02:56:52 GMT >mitra@ece.wisc.edu (Hirak Mitra) writes: >I am to apologize (says my advisor) regarding "Racism, Rednecks and Such", >to a man named Mark Law. Furthermore, I am to post a copy of this apology >on rec.humor. This is what I am doing. [...] >Mark Law >mal@terminator.cc.umich.edu >Dear Mr. Law: [...] Speech restrictions at Mr. Mitra's school and Mr. Law's school have been struck down by federal courts. The basis of these decisions is that public universities are free market places of ideas. "Bad" ideas should, therefore, be out competed, not outlawed. I'm enclosing information on how to get the full text of these decisions. Carl Kadie, Computers and Academic Freedom Archivist --------- ================= README ================= CAF Law Archive [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]] This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic freedom. It includes both case law and legislation. The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/law". For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send caf-law where is a list of the files that you want. File README is a detailed description of the items in the directory. For more information or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). ================= access.minors ================= Comment from the ACLU's Handbook on the _Rights of Authors and Artists_ (1984). It says that protecting minors was held to be an inadequate justification for such a severe interference with adults' First Amendment rights. ================= bbs.kahn ================= Full copy of "Defamation Liability of Computerized Bulletin Board Operators and Problems of Proof" by John R. Kahn ================= bbs.riddle ================= Full copy of "THE ELECTRONIC PAMPHLET--COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS AND THE LAW" by Michael H. Riddle ================= brandenberg-v-ohio ================= In e-mail, a correspondent expressed the view that there was no right to speech that advocated violence. This response is based on U.S. law. It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill of Rights Briefing Paper #10: Freedom of Expression. The Supreme Court's standard is that speech may not be suppressed or punished unless it is intended to produce 'imminent lawless action' and it is 'likely to produce such action.' ================= constitution.us ================= The Constitution of the United States ================= 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. ================= constraints.contractual ================= Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_. Explains that University Code is part of the contract between the student and school. The University can be liable for a breach of the contract (i.e. for not following its own rules). ================= cubby-v-compuserv ================= Report of a federal district court case which said that BBS owners cannot be held liable for the content they know beforehand that the stories are false. ================= 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. ================= due-process.buchanan ================= Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and "find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing. The quotes are from: _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 ================= due-process.french ================= Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and "find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing. The quotes are from: _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. ================= due-process.weckstein ================= Quotes about the due process requirements of "notice of charges" and "find of facts" at a formal administrative hearing. The quotes are from: _School Discipline and Student Rights: an advocate's manual_ by Paul Weckstein, revised edition, 1982, Center for Law and Education. ================= ecpa.1986 ================= Portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) related to e-mail privacy. ================= gillard-v-schmidt ================= Description of an appellate court ruling that the school board could not search the desk of a school counselor without a warrant. ================= goss-v-lopez.fischer ================= Comments from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer, et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. It reports that the Supreme Court says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter is trivial or there is an emergency. ================= goss-v-lopez.mnookin ================= Comments from _In the Interest of Children_, R. Mnookin (Ed.), Franklin E. Zimring and Rayman L. Solomon (Contrib. Authors). It reports that the Supreme Court says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter is trivial or there is an emergency. Also, ================= 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." ================= keyishian-v-board-of-regents ================= In this Supreme Court case, the Court said that public universities can not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of their students and employees (specially with regard to loyalty oaths). ================= meritor-v-vinson ================= This is Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson. This is the Supreme Court decision that recognized illegal sexual harassment in the form of a "hostile environment" at the work place. It is referenced in the two university speech code decisions. ================= mills-v-bd-of-ed ================= Summary from the ACLU's Handbook _The Right of Students_ 3rd Edition by Janet. R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. p. 61. It says before you can be severely punished, you have a due process right to know the specific acts you are charged with committing and the specific rules that those acts violate. ================= mt-healthy-v-doyle ================= _Due Process for School Officials: A Guide for the Conduct of Administrative Proceedings_ by Edgar H. Bittle (1986) says that a formal hearing should make a detailed "findings of fact" list. ================= 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.) Also, 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. Also, from p. 92, it says that there are legal limits to what a (public) school can ask its teachers to sign. [Some of these same limits might apply to what a school can ask a user to sign as a condition of getting (or keeping) a computer account.] ================= privacy.electronic.bill ================= The text of Simon's electronic privacy bill, S. 516. "To prevent potential abuses of electronic monitoring in the workplace." ================= privacy.email ================= "Computer Electronic Mail and Privacy", an edited version of a law school seminar paper by Ruel T. Hernadex ================= privacy.workplace ================= Comments from and about _The new hazards of the high technology workplace_ see (1991) 104 _Harvard Law Review_ 1898. Talks about email and other electronic monitoring. ================= 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." Also, "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". Also, it tells what to do about libel in student publications. ================= student-publications.misc ================= The book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press Law Center (1985,1988), says that four-letter words are protected speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities. ================= 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. ================= ================= Last update Tue Nov 26 21:04:46 EST 1991 -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com I do not represent EFF; this is just me. -------------------