Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 02, No. 01 [Two weeks ending January 5, 1992 [The guest editor this issue is Elizabeth M. Reid (emr@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU). This is the first issue of volume 2. The last issues of volume 1 are forthcoming. - Carl Kadie] ========================== KEY ================================ The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. =============================================================== Note 1 is about Freedom of (impolite) Speech. 1. The ACLU handbook on teachers' legal rights, and Robert J. Wagmam's _The First Amendment Book_, indicate that "The Freedom of Speech guaranteed by the Constitution *does not* require that speakers be polite." <1992Jan5.025518.11163@eff.org> Note 2 about is Internet/inter-network censorship. 2. Although the NSF can refuse to connect to other parts of the Internet, non-NSF bodies are under no obligation to remove material that contravenes NSF regulations from their sites. Users of NSFNet may be bound by their regulations, but merely making information available to NSFNet (or any other net) does not constitute a use of that network. <1992Jan5.161331.29246@eff.org> Notes 3-7 are about privacy in e-mail and U.S. mail. 3. There is a crucial difference between using the U.S. mail system and using electronic mail "via an employer-owned machine using an employer-owned account" that means that users of the latter have no inherent right to privacy in e-mail. <1991Dec31.144936.19661@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 4. Provided that they are paying for the use of the facilities, universities have the right to examine material that is intended to be sent through U.S. mail or through electronic mail. 5. A university would need to provide a disclaimer if it intended to monitor private e-mail, since the use of the word 'mail' contains an implication of privacy. <1992Jan1.134326.28721@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 6. Under federal law, a university may not inspect U.S. mail that they are paying for. Before the application of postage to an item, the institution "enjoys no special privilege of having paid for the mail" and once postage is affixed the item is "unquestionably U.S. mail" and is protected by postal regulations. Whether this should also apply to electronic mail is undecided, however the indications are that unless users of privately owned systems have been told that their e-mail is not private, then it is assumed to be so. <1992Jan1.214839.1611@m.cs.uiuc.edu> 7. While reading private e-mail would be an invasion of privacy, scanning e-mail for key words or viruses might be analogous to monitoring U.S. mail for explosive or volatile materials, and could therefore be legitimate. Note 8 is about censorship of obscenities on IRC and USENET. 8. Censorship on the basis of obscenity or racial harassment is a bad thing. Since some people will always be offended by some things, this curtailing freedom of speech could set a precedent for denying freedom of speech altogether. <9201050905.AA13749@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu> - Elizabeth M. Reid] In this issue: Carl M. Kadie 36 >Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos Carl M. Kadie 37 >The USENET pornographic network Gordon Davis 27 >Dorner vs. the lunatic fringe John G. Holm 30 > Brian F. Redman 21 > Roger Noe 46 privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail John G. Holm 64 > friedman@gnu.ai 34 >Censorship 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos Message-ID: <1992Jan5.025518.11163@eff.org> References: <7104@tamsun.tamu.edu> <23DEC199113155423@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu> Distribution: usa Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 02:55:18 GMT hart@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (Heath) writes: [...] >Get a grip. "Freedom of speech" guarantees an individual the right to >express an opinion. It does not, however, guarantee an individual the >right to express that opinion in any manner s/he sees fit. [...] The Freedom of Speech guaranteed by the Constitution (which, by the way doesn't legally apply here) *does not* require that speakers be polite: Paraphrasing from an ACLU handbook on teacher's legal rights: ============== Generally, speech, if otherwise shielded from punishment by the First Amendment, 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, from _The First Amendment Book_ by Robert J. Wagmam, p. 157: ========= Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote [in _Hustler Magazine v. Falwell_] that "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." ================= -- 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: The USENET pornographic network Message-ID: <1992Jan5.161331.29246@eff.org> References: <1992Jan5.023936.10850@eff.org> <1992Jan5.003533.107@sdg.dra.com> Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1992 16:13:31 GMT In article <1992Jan5.023936.10850@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > The NSF does not own or control the whole Internet. They have no right > to restrict material from the whole Internet. sean@sdg.dra.com writes: >Nor do they. You are quite free to do whatever you like on your own network. >Likewise, NSF can decline to provide a route across the NSF backbone to or >From your network. >If you're running a system that isn't capable at making such distinctions, >then I guess you have to remove the material completely. But the NSF isn't >responsible for inadequacy of your equipment. Are you suggesting that it would be proper for Boston University to call me on the phone and tell me to either remove everything "offensive" from the CAF archive or else they will cut off *all* contact between our two sites (e.g. email, ftps to inoffensive material, etc)? I concede that such an ultimatium would likely be legal, but would it be proper in terms of academic freedom? Why should the information provider be required to stop an information requester from (maybe) violating the rules of NSFNet? The NSFNet rules (ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/polices/nsf) apply only to the use of the net (for example, doing an anonymous ftp). Making information available to NSFNet (and dozens of other nets and thousands of sites) is not a use of NSFNet (or the other nets or sites). - 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 cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: davis@kahane.cogsci.uiuc.edu (Gordon Davis) Subject: Re: Dorner vs. the lunatic fringe Message-ID: <1991Dec31.144936.19661@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1991 14:49:36 GMT carey@m.cs.uiuc.edu (John Carey) writes: >I read a survey in Computer World of managers in businesses that use >computers for day-to-day work. Something like 28 out of 32 surveyed >felt it was their right to monitor (that is, read) any >electronic mail that their employees send or receive even if the >content was personal! I wonder how many of these managers would feel >about going through their employees' U. S. Mail mailboxes? Now, wait a minute here. Do I understand that you do not see a difference between the U.S. mail and sending/receiving electronic mail via an employer-owned machine using an employer-owned account. Just because many university/commercial employees with e-mail accounts assigned to them are allowed to use them as virtually their own personal account and do so (myself included), does not mean that they have an INHERENT RIGHT to do so. I am thankful that the university allows me to use my accounts to transmit personal messages. However, if the rules changed and that privilege was taken away, I would have no grounds on which to complain since it was not a right but a privilege. Gordon Davis davis@cs.uiuc.edu ------------------- From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: jgholm@crhc.uiuc.edu (John G. Holm) Subject: Re: Dorner vs. the lunatic fringe Date: 31 Dec 91 20:11:13 GMT Message-ID: davis@kahane.cogsci.uiuc.edu (Gordon Davis) writes: >carey@m.cs.uiuc.edu (John Carey) writes: [...] >>I wonder how many of these managers would feel >>about going through their employees' U. S. Mail mailboxes? >Now, wait a minute here. Do I understand that you do not see a difference >between the U.S. mail and sending/receiving electronic mail via an >employer-owned machine using an employer-owned account. [...] This is a good point. I believe that the university has a right to look through US mail that they pay for. If I put a stamp on a letter and put it in the outgoing mailbox, then it is a federal crime for the university to look at it. If I put a letter in the "mail needing postage" box, then the university can look at it. I think this is university policy. I think as long as the university is paying for the personal use of their educational computers, they have a right to monitor them. I don't like the idea of them monitoring me, but I think they have the right. John Holm jgholm@crhc.uiuc.edu ------------------- From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: bfrg9732@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brian F. Redman) Subject: Re: Dorner vs. the lunatic fringe Message-ID: <1992Jan1.134326.28721@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1992 13:43:26 GMT LI>I am thankful that the university allows me to use my accounts LI>to transmit LI>personal messages. However, if the rules changed and LI>that privilege was LI>taken away, I would have no grounds on which LI> to complain since it was LI>not a right but a privilege. The university would need to provide a disclaimer if it changed its rules on personal messages. By calling something "e-mail" (specifically by using the word "mail") there is an implication of privacy. You are correct that it is not a right as such, however as in the case of cigarettes for example a disclaimer is necessary. Nobody makes you smoke but still you are entitled to the information that smoking is bad for your health. Likewise with "e-mail." As long as a disclaimer was provided so that the user was aware of the lack of privacy, no problem. Otherwise the whole situation smacks of a "setup." In other words, "Sure use this e-mail to send messages to whoever you want -- *just like the U.S. mail, only better*" implies privacy. ------------------- From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: noe@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) Subject: privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail Message-ID: <1992Jan1.214839.1611@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1992 21:48:39 GMT In article jgholm@crhc.uiuc.edu (John G. Holm) writes: >I believe that the university has a right to look through US mail >that they pay for. If I put a stamp on a letter and put it >in the outgoing mailbox, then it is a federal crime for the >university to look at it. If I put a letter in the >"mail needing postage" box, then the university can look >at it. I think this is university policy. If so, that policy violates federal law. This question has been decided by the judicial system, if I remember correctly from a commercial law course I took 10 years ago. The University probably has a policy that they will not pay postage for personal mail. They can justifiably refuse to apply postage to a piece of mail if the sender will not divulge the nature of the contents, to show its relationship to University business. They cannot inspect mail, since this is something that can be done ONLY by postal inspectors. Before the application of postage, the University enjoys no special privilege of having paid for the mail. They certainly don't own it. After the application of postage, the item is unquestionably U.S. mail which has been deposited by its sender in a manner that the mail is fully protected by postal regulations. The University does not gain ownership over a piece of U.S. mail by applying postage. Since at no time does the University own the piece of mail, they cannot inspect it. One of the issues in the trial law was when something becomes "mail" and is protected from unlawful search and seizure. It is not an absolute requirement that the item have postage affixed. Nor is it an absolute requirement that the item be deposited in a box owned by the U.S. Postal Service. Any receptacle marked as being for U.S. mail, even if only a plastic tray, can qualify. The postal regulations are purposely written this tightly. >I think as long as the university is paying for the >personal use of their educational computers, they >have a right to monitor them. This is an entirely separate issue and has yet to be settled by the courts. Some questions about the protection of e-mail have been decided, however tentatively. Generally, the courts seem willing to protect the reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus essentially all the University employees who have not been formally notified that their e-mail is not private (such as NCSA employees) are protected against warrantless inspections. ------------------- From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: jgholm@crhc.uiuc.edu (John G. Holm) Subject: Re: privacy in U.S. mail and e-mail Date: 4 Jan 92 19:31:15 GMT Message-ID: noe@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) writes: >In article jgholm@crhc.uiuc.edu (John G. Holm) writes: >>I believe that the university has a right to look through US mail >>that they pay for. If I put a stamp on a letter and put it >>in the outgoing mailbox, then it is a federal crime for the >>university to look at it. If I put a letter in the >>"mail needing postage" box, then the university can look >>at it. I think this is university policy. >If so, that policy violates federal law. This question has been decided >by the judicial system, ... >Before the application of postage, the University enjoys no special >privilege of having paid for the mail. They certainly don't own it. ... >One of the issues in the trial law was when something becomes "mail" >and is protected from unlawful search and seizure. It is not an >absolute requirement that the item have postage affixed. Nor is it >an absolute requirement that the item be deposited in a box owned >by the U.S. Postal Service. Any receptacle marked as being for U.S. >mail, even if only a plastic tray, can qualify. The postal regulations >are purposely written this tightly. This is interesting considering that the CSL office was actually opening letters that were not stamped to see if they were personal. I remember some memo going around saying that mail put in the "Mail needing postage box" was fair game. They claimed that this did not violate federal law and that they had legal precedence to this (What else would they claim?). As far as I know, they have stopped opening unstamped letters. >>I think as long as the university is paying for the >>personal use of their educational computers, they >>have a right to monitor them. >This is an entirely separate issue and has yet to be settled by the >courts. It is similar in that in that it is a right to privacy issue. >Some questions about the protection of e-mail have been >decided, however tentatively. Generally, the courts seem willing to >protect the reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus essentially all >the University employees who have not been formally notified that >their e-mail is not private (such as NCSA employees) are protected >against warrantless inspections. The internet is scanned by some security agency (FBI?) for key words. Other companies scan their e-mail for keywords such as product names and such. Many sites also scan for worms attached to e-mail. The email legal cases that I have heard are companies that read personal email for fun or managers who want to get the dirt on their employees. This is a definate privacy issue. Sending viruses, passwd files, and proprietary information is not as clear cut. It is similar to sending explosives or even volatile material through the US mail. I am not trying to defend the university. I don't like the idea of the university looking at my mail, but I am happy that they look for malicious behavior. John Holm ------------------- From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: Re: Censorship Message-ID: <9201050905.AA13749@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Date: 5 Jan 92 09:05:35 GMT What are the censorship guidelines for USEnet? I would think that whatever terms apply to USEnet could be applicable to IRC as well. As the person who will end up being responsible for "censoring" people here, when it happens, I would prefer it avoid it. There was a problem a few months ago with one of our users who was posting pornographic material to inappropriate newsgroups on USEnet, and later he flamed various sysop groups as well. The interesting thing is that he wasn't doing it from the fsf machines at all. He was doing it elsewhere, but in anger the groups involved tried to force us to remove his gnu account too. When we refused, they threatened to throw all sorts of legal trouble at us. It's not clear to me what "obscenity" really is, either. There aren't that many things that offend me anymore. Some people are no doubt more touchy than others, and they'll demand that people be stifled for the least little thing. The above example leads me to believe that if it will easily get out of hand. IMHO, obscenity and racial harassment laws are *bad* things, because they set a precedent for curtailing freedom of speech. As bad as I think some ideas are, I think that trying to suppress them is worse. "Out of site" is *not* "out of mind", and I urge people not to contribute to a growing social problem in the US, especially on university campuses (where the aforementioned "racial harassment" laws have really hit home). There is always going to be something out there that offends people. Why should obscenity (for example) be outlawed and not, say, poor personal hygiene? (which is far more offensive to me) --- Noah Friedman friedman@prep.ai.mit.edu -------------------