---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: joslin@tso.uc.edu (Paul Joslin) Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.07 Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 02, No. 07 [Week ending February 16, 1992 ========================== KEY ================================ The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. =============================================================== Notes 1-2 discuss a student whose computer access was threatened because an archived copy of a password cracking program was found among his files. 1. A user on this system was apparently running a password cracking program. An administer went looking around and found I had a copy of the newest version of Crack. I have legitimate reasons for having this program. I have received mail from the Chairman of the Department "inviting" me to discuss my account privileges. "It really bothers me that I'm going to get in a lot of trouble (probably anyway) just for the mere possession of a program." <9202161945.AA24863@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> 2. Your treatment may violate due process procedures. Supporting quotes from the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students are included. <1992Feb16.202149.17301@eff.org> Note 3 concerns student protests over the Ohio State _Lantern_'s coverage of a Revisionist advertisement. 3. The Ohio State University _Lantern_ refused to accept an ad which claimed that the Holocaust never occurred. Instead, it ran the ad on the editorial page, as news, along with an anti-Revisionist editorial cartoon and a seven paragraph explanation. Jewish students are calling for the resignation of the _Lantern_'s editor-in-chief, advisor, and business manager. The _Lantern_'s covered was balanced; what is the effect of the challenge? "When we become afraid to speak our minds, when we become fearful of expression because of what others might think, and when we stifle academic pursuit because of what is currently "correct," then we lose what it means to be fully human." <9202141919.AA21041@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> Note 4 is a list of computer crime statues recently uploaded to the SULAW archive. 4. "The following files have been uploaded to the SULAW archive (sulaw.law.su.oz.au). They are presently located in the /upload directory but will eventually be moved to the /pub/law directory." <1992Feb16.151824.2536@darwin.ntu.edu.au> Note 5 is an article from _The Jewish Advocate_, a Boston weekly, concerning anti-Semitism on the Internet. 5. A Berkeley graduate student was "stunned to discover" anti-Semitic material on the Internet. No specific legal action is planned since the university's policies on computer expression are general. A spokesman for the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith said, "We don't advocate censorship. We encourage Internet subscribers to use their subscription power, their keyboard power, to register their own objections to this perversion of computer technology." Note 6 is a discussion of new rules for gaming on machines in a lab at the University of Illinois. 6. Previously, you could game until someone needed that machine for academic use. However, people are reluctant to ask a gamer to give up a machine. "My job is to see that that person gets a computer, not that another gets to play 6 hours of Civilization." <1992Feb11.160723.20190@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Notes 7-9 concern the lengths to which a student must protect information stored on a school computer. Is it a violation of academic integrity to have a "022" umask? 7. A Cornell student was told by a TA, "by leaving class files unprotected, allowing anyone to walk in and peruse my solutions to programming assignments, I could potentially be considered to be providing solutions to the assignments, particularly since I've done it "knowingly" by changing the protection myself." <9202102257.AA20024@crocus.cit.cornell.edu> 8. Under Dartmouth's honor code, the situation would be treated differently. If someone steals something, they are at fault. If you left it unprotected so they could copy it, you can be held responsible. <1992Feb12.140210.10645@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 9. A user asks, "If you left written things in the unlocked room, would that be considered the same thing?". "I consider locks (and the permission bits in UNIX filesystems) to be the thing to use WHEN I DO NOT TRUST PEOPLE. However I do not think it should be someone else's place to tell you who to trust and who not to trust." <1992Feb12.013327.3257pdh@netcom.COM> Notes 10-11 continue the discuss on speech restrictions CMU's computer bulletin boards. 10. A prior message claimed that the suppressed speech was "intimidating, harassing, or sexually harassing", and that "Such speech, like the classic example of "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, can be shown to do real harm." This user claims that it is the result of shouting fire which should be punished, not the shouting. "What exactly is the difference between offensive, intimidating, and harassing?" <1992Feb11.080542.20333@Princeton.EDU> 11. How can you quantify unacceptable speech? If I proposition a woman, am I guilty of some crime other than rudeness? What if I made a (crude) statement of fact? <1992Feb9.213333.3056@hubcap.clemson.edu> - Paul] In this issue: Bryan Strawser 145 (none) Carl M. Kadie 58 > Robert F Solon 99 Another OSU Lantern Imbroglio Carl M. Kadie 3 [alt.bbs.allsysop, et al.<>puter Crime Statutes extracts) Mark Neely 108 New Uploads (Computer Crime Statutes extracts) Carl M. Kadie 3 [comp.org.eff.talk] "Anti<>und on Large Computer Network" Ron Newman 82 "Anti-Semitism Found on Large Computer Network" Carl M. Kadie 3 [cso.general] Re: Game Ban!!! (What the...?) Declan Fleming 35 >Game Ban!!! (What the...?) Eric Scheirer -- 32 umask & culpability Geoff Bronner 40 > Phil NRA 69 > David Nieporent 31 >Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Mike Percy 36 > Computers and Academic Freedom News Managing Editor: Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org) Administration: William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org) Associate Editor: Elizabeth M. Reid (emr@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au) Associate Editor: Paul Joslin (joslin@tso.uc.edu) Associate Editor: Adam C. Gross (ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu) 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 ftp.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 abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or her 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 caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: feanor@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Bryan Strawser) Subject: Article 1--(none) Message-ID: <9202161945.AA24863@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 09:45:36 GMT I logged onto our system yesterday, to find this /etc/motd (message of the day) waiting for all users to see and read. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ULTRIX V4.1 (Rev. 55) System #13: Thu Jan 16 16:05:05 EST 1992 UWS V4.1 (Rev. 197) Games are restricted to the time period midnight to 8am. Violators will lose their telnet privileges. NOTE: ftp from remote sites during non-prime hours (that is, 8 pm to 6 am). NOTE: Do not put any subdirectories on the /tmp area. NOTE: Backups are scheduled for 5pm on Sundays. ********************************************************* Password hacking is unethical and will not be tolerated on this system. Any potential and/or real violators will lose their account on this system and perhaps others. The system will be monitored for this and any other potentially unethical problems. ********************************************************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- How did all of this come about? That has to be one of the first questions on your mind. Here's the story... or as close as I think i've got it figured out so far... Apparently some user I am not even familiar with was running a password cracking program, more than likely Crack, or something of that sort. It placed a drain on the system, so one of the users (who had root's password) went looking, probably with a 'ps -aux | grep something'. S/he found a process that was consuming time, noticed it was called Crack, or something of the sort. Su'ed root, killed the process, changed the password of the account, and went looking around. Could have been a find / -name Crack* or something else, I'm not really sure. They found copies of the program in a number of accounts, in different forms. Some tarred, some compressed, and some untarred and compiled. One of the accounts in which it was in was mine. In my archive directory, where I store programs for download at a later point, I had the newest version of Crack in a tar file, called crack.tar. I had downloaded it a few weeks ago, and placed it on my 3b1 - awaiting the arrival of my Sun 3/140 Workstation I bought a month ago. Why did I have this? In my research agenda in the field of Computer Science, I have many varied interests. I'm involved in such things as Cognitive Science, Computer Human Interaction (CHI), User interface design, Psychology, and - of course - Computer Security, especially when considering the people behind the breakins, what drives them, what are they looking for, what are they trying to do... What was I going to do with this? On my 3b1, and my Sun (whenever it gets here :) I would be testing the ability of these programs to crack passwords. If enough evidence could be gathered to show that nearly any password could be broken, given enough time - my future research paper could give a strong case for the shadow password system, and othe ways of increasing security. Where did I get it? I ftp'ed Crack from a FTP site out there somewhere, off hand I just don't remember which one it was. Now, I have never EVER ran this program on any machine that I do not own myself. There are multiple users on my 3b1, and there will be multiple users on my Sun 3/140 as well, but since I have the root password , there is no need for anyone to worry about myself running Crack on my machine. Since this was discovered in my account, nothing has happened, yet anyway. I did however, receive this mail message to my account on our VaxCluster >from the Chairman of the Department that owns and operates our Unix system. ============================================================================== Please see me about your UNIX privileges. Since you will be a computer science major, I want to see that you get on the right track. Running password cracking program is not wise, ============================================================================== As I had already stated, I have never ran a password cracking program on their unix machine. In actuality, I've never ran it on my machine, it doesn't seem to like my 3b1 too well. I suppose a case could be made that I could have downloaded the /etc/passwd file onto my machine, and cracked it there. But, I will testify to the fact that I have not done anything of the sort. It really bothers me that I'm going to get in a lot of trouble (probably anyway) just for the mere possession of a program. In a way, I guess it's kind of like being a locksmith.. should we kill all locksmiths because they possess the knowledge to crack through any lock - just because that mere possession of knowledge could lead him to break into your home, and steal your wife's favorite doll? While I know that I only possess the program, and I have never ran it, where do they get the idea that I have ran it? Are they so paranoid now that they will accuse me of running it even though I just possess it? I've never been accused in a crime. I've only been in court once, to testify concerning an assault and battery case that I witnessed a few years back. Now, I could be accused of breaking into literally hundreds of accounts on this system, just because I possess the program to do that. What will happen now? I'm not sure. Eventually, after I have calmed down, talked to some people, and called different places.. I'll go in and see the people that I need to see, and make my point. If they decide to take my account, I'll fight it for as long as I can. The Others I only personally know one other person involved in this impropriety. His account has been revoked pending "further investigation", who knows if he will ever get it back. To the best of my knowledge, of all of the people involved, I am the only one that still has access to their account. Finished in a fit of frustration, Bryan Strawser The Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and the Humanities Jeep Hall Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306-0655 (317) 285-7417 Please do not send mail to any other users here (like root) about this matter, I would prefer to keep this discussion away from them until absolutely necessary. Feel free to e-mail myself if you have any questions, or call if you're really that interested :-) Bryan Strawser feanor@bsu-cs.bsu.edu -=-=-=-=- Ball State University - Computer Science Department Unix -=-=-=-=- "Unix: It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there." ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 2--Re: (none) Message-ID: <1992Feb16.202149.17301@eff.org> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 20:21:49 GMT feanor@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Bryan Strawser) writes: >I logged onto our system yesterday, to find this /etc/motd (message of >the day) waiting for all users to see and read. > Any potential and/or real violators will ********* > lose their account on this system and perhaps others. [...] > I only personally know one other person involved in this impropriety. >His account has been revoked pending "further investigation", who knows >if he will ever get it back. >To the best of my knowledge, of all of the people >involved, I am the only one that still has access to their account. [...] It sounds like you need some due process procedures. I am appalled that you can be expelled from the computer without a hearing because one person thinks you have the potential to do something "unethical." Here is what the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says: ======================start quote 1 ============ C. Status of Student Pending Final Action Pending action on the charges, the status of a student should not be altered, or his right to be present on the campus and to attend classes suspended, except for reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and well being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students, faculty, or university property. ================end quote=========== ==============begin quote 2========= When the misconduct may result in serious penalties and if the student questions the fairness of disciplinary action taken against him, he should be granted, on request, the privilege of a hearing before a regularly constituted hearing committee. The following suggested hearing committee procedures satisfy the requirements of procedural due process in situations requiring a high degree of formality. ================= end quote ===================== For more on due process see: ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/student.freedoms ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/caf-statement ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/README - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu= ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) Subject: Article 3--Another OSU Lantern Imbroglio Message-ID: <9202141919.AA21041@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 09:19:20 GMT Well, the Ohio State University _Lantern_ is at it again!! [begin objective mode] Note: All direct quotes are from _The Columbus Dispatch_, Friday, February 14, 1992 on page 6 C. _The Columbus Dispatch_ reported today that over one hundred Jewish students at OSU have filed a complaint with the Office of Affirmative Action, claiming that publishing a column in the _Lantern_ that called the Holocaust a hoax was racial harassment. The complaints seek to have the editor "'disciplined.'" The OSU Office of Affirmative Action has authority to to discipline students up to and including expulsion. The background is as follows: Bradley R. Smith, a California-based Holocaust revisionist, wanted to run a full-page ad in the _Lantern_ that said that Zionist organizations conspired to create a "'Holocaust legend'" to arose sympathy and support for Jewish causes. The Publications Committee, composed of both students and faculty, voted 5-4 not to run the ad. The editorial staff of the _Lantern_ then voted to run the ad as an editorial in the opinion page. The same day, there was an editorial cartoon denouncing revisionism, along with a seven-paragraph explanation defending publishing the text of the ad as news. Also, OSU President Gordon Gee wrote a column denouncing the view of history advocated by Smith. (There was extensive coverage of the deliberations of the Publications Committee in prior issues.) After the _Lantern_ went to press on Jan. 24, there was a demonstration at the journalism building by Jewish leaders and students. The Hillel Foundation has called for the resignations of Editor-in-Chief Samantha G. Haney, newspaper advisor Dr. Mary Webster, and the _Lantern's_ business manager, Ray Catalino. Daniel Newman, the vice-president of an OSU student group called Students for Journalistic Integrity, said, "'Calling the Holocaust a Jewish hoax is an anti-Jewish slur and should therefore be treated by the university the same way as any other act of racial harassment.'" [end objective mode] My first reaction to this is the Students for Journalistic Integrity is overreacting. The _Lantern's_ coverage was extremely well balanced. They treated the ad as an editorial about political issues. On First Amendment grounds, I would guess that writers are protected, as long as they do not libel or slander, which Mr. Smith never did. (I read the Jan 24 issue. I'll see if I can make it available to interested readers.) So I'm not sure if there is a legal case here. However, as I have emphatically stated before, it isn't the responsibility of the creators of expression to determine if others are offended. They can't do it, because there is no objective way to determine offense. Further, the hallmark of a liberally-educated person is the ability to think critically, i.e., to examine with an open mind all the facts and then make a dtermination as to the validity of them. What SJI would like to do, apparently, is substitute critical thinking for an ideology of doctrine. Doctrine, traditionally, is that which is unquestionable and to be accepted unconditionally. I reject this philosophy. As I've argued before, doctrine backed by the force of law is merely totalitarianism. What SJI advocates is actually totalitarianism of an academic sort. When we become afraid to speak our minds, when we become fearful of expression because of what others might think, and when we stifle academic pursuit because of what is currently "correct," then we lose what it means to be fully human. We allow our own dignity and freedom as individuals to be lessened. We become nothing more than automata, unwilling to think for ourselves, fearful of free expression, and blind to our own thoughts, ideas, and feelings. This is what Students for Journalistic Integrity want to do. They want to destroy academic freedom and replace it with blind obedience. Under the guise of protecting and promoting dignity and self-worth, they actually seek to undermine it, by denying all people the right to think and evaluate for themselves. Their very name is a misnomer. They aren't for Journalistic Integrity. They're for Journalistic Slavery, and they want to be the slave-drivers. I stand for all expression. I am afraid of no idea, for I know that I can look at it squarely and reject it or accept it on its merits, with no preconceptions and no preconditions. Why do people continually advocate, here in the U.S.A., philosophies that have been rejected by Russians, Latvians, Poles, Germans, Chinese, and all who have fought, and died, for freedomn to think? If "Students for Journalistic Integrity" are our futire leaders, then I weep for our generation. Robert F. Solon, Jr. rsolon@dsac.dla.mil My opinions are my own. ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 4--[alt.bbs.allsysop, et al.] New Uploads (Computer Crime Statutes extracts) Message-ID: <9202161725.AA13467@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 05:25:02 GMT ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Feb 16 00:00:00 1992 From: neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au (Mark Neely, NTU Law School) Newsgroups: alt.bbs.allsysop,misc.legal,misc.legal.computing,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Article 5--New Uploads (Computer Crime Statutes extracts) Message-ID: <1992Feb16.151824.2536@darwin.ntu.edu.au> Date: 16 Feb 92 15:18:23 +0900 The following files have been uploaded to the SULAW archive (sulaw.law.su.oz.au). They are presently located in the /upload directory but will eventually be moved to the /pub/law directory. A word of warning - the SULAW machine has had a few difficulties resulting in the loss of the computer hosting the /pub/law directory. This will be fixed on or around Monday morning (17th Feb) so it might be prudent to hold off downloading the files until then! ___ canada.law - Quotes from Canadian Criminal Code by Henry Waldock alabama.law - Extract from Alabama Criminal Code Title 13A, Chapter 8, Article 1 arizona.law - Extract from Arizona Criminal Code Title 13. Criminal Code Chapt. 23 Organized Crime and Fraud s.13-2316 Computer Fraud california.law - Extract from California Penal Code Part 1. Title 13. Crimes Against Property Chapter 5. Larcency [Theft] s.502 Unauthorised access to computers, computer systems and data colorado.law - Extract from Colorado Criminal Code Title 18 Article 5.5 Computer Crime connecticut.law - Extract from Connecticut Penal Code Title 53A Chapt. 952 Part XXII Computer Related Offences delaware.law - Extract from Delaware Criminal Code Title 11 Part 1. Chapt. 5 sub-Chapt.III Offenses Involving Property florida.law - Extract from Florida Computer Crimes Act Title XLVI Chapter 815. Computer Related Crimes georgia.law - Extract from Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act Title 16 Chapter 9. Article 6. Computer Related Offenses ghana.law - Text of *proposed* Ghana Computer Crime Law hawaii.law - Extract from Hawaii Penal Code Title 37 Chapter 708. Part IX. Computer Crimes iowa.law - Extract from Iowa Criminal Code Title XXXV Chapter 716A Computer Crime idaho.law - Extract from Idaho Criminal Code Title 18 Chapter 22 Computer Crime illinois.law - Extract from Illinios Criminal Code Chap.38. Div. I Title III Part C. Article 160. Computer Crime indiana.law - Extract from Indiana Criminal Code Title 35 Article 43 Offenses Against Property maryland.law - Extract from Maryland Criminal Code Article 27, s.146 Unauthorised Access to Computers Prohibited minnesota.law - Extract from Minnesota Criminal Code Chapter 609.87 Computer Crimes new_jersey.law - Extract from New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice Title 2C sub-Title 2 Pt.2 Chapter 20(II) Computer-Related Crimes new_york.law - Extract from New York Consolidated Laws Chapter 40 Part 3 Title J Article 156 Offences Involving Computers tx.law - Extract from Texas Penal Code Title 7 Chapter 33. Computer Crimes united_kingdom.law - Computer Misuse Act us.law - Extract from US Code (Annotated) Title 18 Part I Chapter 47 s.1030 Fraud and Related Activity in connection with computers virginia.law - Extract from Virginia Criminal Code Title 18.2 Chapter 5. Article 7.1 Computer Crimes wisconsin.law - Computer Law - State of Wisconsin Chapter 293, s.943.70 Computer Crimes west_virginia.law - West Virginia State Law ___ Mark Neely Articled Clerk (Slave) | Tutor Messrs Cridlands, | Law School Barristers and Solicitors. | Northern Territory University Darwin, NT Australia neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 6--[comp.org.eff.talk] "Anti-Semitism Found on Large Computer Network" Message-ID: <9202142121.AA05298@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 09:21:12 GMT ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992 From: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Article 7--"Anti-Semitism Found on Large Computer Network" Date: 11 Feb 92 23:46:52 GMT Message-ID: [I have also posted this to alt.censorship and soc.culture.jewish. I am posting it here separately to try to avoid cross-pollution and keep this newsgroup friendly and free of neo-Nazi nuts. -- Ron Newman] -------------------- >from The Jewish Advocate (a Boston weekly), 2/7/92: Anti-Semitism Found on Large Computer Network by Garth Wolkoff, Northern California Jewish Bulletin Late last year, U.C. Berkeley graduate student David Kaim logged onto a school computer network. He heard that by pressing a few buttons, he could access job listings, buy a bicycle, read movie reviews and communicate with students at schools around the country. He found all that--but he also was stunned to discover screen after screen of anti-Semitic material, mostly entries describing how the Holocaust was a gross exaggeration by a Jewish or Zionist conspiracy and that Jews should apologize to David Duke for defaming his character. Kaim had tapped into Internet, a computer network that connects up to five million scientists, researchers, students, and other academics around the world; in the Bay Area alone it is used by tens of thousands of students every day. Other Jewish students involved with Berkeley Hillel told Kaim they had noticed the entries. So had Giovanni Paoletti, who works for a computer company in Silicon Valley and attends Temple Beth David in Saratoga, as did many of Paoletti's friends who work at computer companies in the area. In fact, addresses and phone numbers where computer subscribers can buy or obtain Holocaust-revisionist material and other anti-Semitic texts are being posted on the Internet network with alarming frequency. "There never have been any proofs that Jews murder gentile children to use their blood for matzah. There have never been any proofs that Germans murdered Jews and used their fat to manufacture hand soap," read one transmission from Oregon in September, an excerpt >from a Bradley Smith tract titled "Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist." Some of the anti-Semitic material on Internet, which runs the gamut from Jewish media conspiracy theories to the reproduction of Holocaust-revisionist literature, originates in Oregon; a fax number often included for more information has that state's area code. Other transmissions collected by Kaim have come from the San Jose area; Amherst, Mass.; New Jersey's Rutgers University; and an unspecified branch of AT&T Bell Laboratories. In Berkeley, the Hillel plans to respond to Kaim's complaint, according to director Beverly Pinto. But no specific legal action is planned, she said, since the university's policies on computer expression are quite general. Interestingly, Kaim's complaints come on the heels of a November controversy involving the Berkeley student newspaper's refusal to print a Holocaust-revisionist advertisement by the same Bradley Smith whose "Confessions" were quoted on the computer network. The discovery of the anti-Semitic material also comes after the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith successfully persuaded Prodigy, a private computer network based in New York, to censure [sic] anti-Semitic transmissions. But according to Jack Cohen of the ADL's Central Pacific Region, unless Internet has a policy of censoring material, his agency won't ask the network to stop the anti-Semitic electronic mail. "We don't advocate censorship," Cohen said. "We encourage Internet subscribers to use their subscription power, their keyboard power, to register their own objections to this perversion of computer technology." -- Ron Newman rnewman@bbn.com ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 8--[cso.general] Re: Game Ban!!! (What the...?) Message-ID: <9202142113.AA00928@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 09:13:41 GMT ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Feb 14 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: cso.general From: declan@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Declan J. Fleming) Subject: Article 9--Re: Game Ban!!! (What the...?) Message-ID: <1992Feb11.160723.20190@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1992 16:07:23 GMT vanichth@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Mitri Van) writes: >Yeah, the old policy used to be that you could game until someone needed it >for academic use. Lately, tho... we've noticed that people tend to be >intimidated by gamers, and would leave the lab rather than asking an op to >boot the gamer, or, someone would peek their head into a lab, notice that >all the computers were being used, and then leave without checking to see if >games were being played or not. This new policy is designed to ensure that >there are always open terms so that people don't have to be forced to ask >gamers to leave, as well as let people know that there *are* open terms. >For example, at Illini Hall before the game ban, 80% of the computers being >used would be occupied by people playing games. Someone that needed to do >academic work would usually peek into the lab, see all the computers full and >leave. I personally think that the ban is kinda good... it helps keep the >noise level down, which tends to annoy people doing real work, as well as >force _me_ to do schoolwork... > >All these opinions are mine and _not_ CCSO's > This is a pretty good summary of why things are the way they are. The computers are provided for academic use. Up til now, I didn't care if people played games on them. But as more and more classes depend directly on the machines in our labs, I want to make access as easy as possible for people doing class work. I've personally seen what Mitri talks about above. Some people don't want to bother someone else playing a game, so they leave. My job is to see that that person gets a computer, not that another gets to play 6 hours of Civilization. Declan Fleming >Mitri Van > mv45925@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Feb 10 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (Eric Scheirer -- HORJ@vax5.cit.cornell.edu) Subject: Article 10--umask & culpability Message-ID: <9202102257.AA20024@crocus.cit.cornell.edu> Date: 10 Feb 92 12:57:37 GMT While chatting with my TA earlier today, I learned that I may be in potential violation of Cornell's Code of Academic Integrity by having added "umask 022" to my .login file. For those who may not speak UNIX, that's the command which lets everyone in the world read and execute, although not modify, my files. According to him, by leaving class files unprotected, allowing anyone to walk in and peruse my solutions to programming assignments, I could potentially be considered to be providing solutions to the assignments, particularly since I've done it "knowingly" by changing the protection myself. Note that all of this is for a class in which "help" and "consultation" has been expressly NOT forbidden. However, copying someone's code would certainly violate academic integrity, as it should. What are people's reactions to this? Is this sort of policy actually stated in any school's honor code or code of academic integrity? (I plan to pick up a copy of Cornell's tomorrow). Most importantly, has anyone ever been disciplined under this sort of reasoning? This "suggestion" (and it was really only a suggestion) didn't bother me too much. I happily complied by changing the permissions on my classwork directory while leaving my non-coursework files readable. ---- Eric Scheirer -- Cornell U. -- (607) 253-2431 -- HORJ@vax5.cit.cornell.edu "Small change can often be found under sofa cushions." -- Lazarus Long ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Feb 12 00:00:00 1992 From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: Article 11--Re: umask & culpability Message-ID: <1992Feb12.140210.10645@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: 12 Feb 92 14:02:10 GMT In <9202102257.AA20024@crocus.cit.cornell.edu> escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (Eric Scheirer -- HORJ@vax5.cit.cornell.edu) writes: >While chatting with my TA earlier today, I learned that I may be in >potential violation of Cornell's Code of Academic Integrity by >having added "umask 022" to my .login file. For those who may not >speak UNIX, that's the command which lets everyone in the world >read and execute, although not modify, my files. [stuff deleted] >What are people's reactions to this? Is this sort of policy actually >stated in any school's honor code or code of academic integrity? (I >plan to pick up a copy of Cornell's tomorrow). Most importantly, >has anyone ever been disciplined under this sort of reasoning? Wow. I thought Dartmouth had a screwed up judicial system. This clearly takes the cake. Why not start arresting people when people steal things >from them? It reminds me of how mad the drill instructor in "Full Metal Jacket" got when his recruits left their footlockers open. Anyway. Dartmouth has an honor code so a situation like that would be treated a lot differently. If you leave something unprotected and someone steals it for their own academic benefit they are at fault. Not you. But, if you left something unprotected so that someone could copy it you would be held responsible. Complicity = guilt. Of course, that doesn't mean they won't say, "you should have taken better precautions." But that is a lot better than getting charged. Dartmouth is pretty reasonable about assiging blame, they just aren't very good at dealing with things after that. -Geoff -- geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Technician, Tuck School of Business _______________________________________________________________________________ "Are you sure?" | "That's a lot of money for a head!" "Yeah. Sure I'm sure." | -The Ugly ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Feb 11 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: pdh@netcom.COM (Phil Howard KA9WGN / I am the NRA) Subject: Article 12--Re: umask & culpability Message-ID: <1992Feb12.013327.3257pdh@netcom.COM> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 92 01:33:27 GMT escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (Eric Scheirer -- HORJ@vax5.cit.cornell.edu) writes: >While chatting with my TA earlier today, I learned that I may be in >potential violation of Cornell's Code of Academic Integrity by >having added "umask 022" to my .login file. For those who may not >speak UNIX, that's the command which lets everyone in the world >read and execute, although not modify, my files. This is sort of like leaving the lock on a door in the unlocked state as a routine action. >According to him, by leaving class files unprotected, allowing anyone >to walk in and peruse my solutions to programming assignments, I >could potentially be considered to be providing solutions to the >assignments, particularly since I've done it "knowingly" by changing >the protection myself. If you left written things in the unlocked room, would that be considered the same thing? >Note that all of this is for a class in which "help" and "consultation" >has been expressly NOT forbidden. However, copying someone's code >would certainly violate academic integrity, as it should. Agreed! >What are people's reactions to this? Is this sort of policy actually >stated in any school's honor code or code of academic integrity? (I >plan to pick up a copy of Cornell's tomorrow). Most importantly, >has anyone ever been disciplined under this sort of reasoning? It depends. Consider the unlocked room and compare it to your "unprotected" home file tree. Do you actually tell people the room is unlocked? Do you tell people there are certain things (not the class work) that are worth looking at in the unlocked room? >This "suggestion" (and it was really only a suggestion) didn't bother >me too much. I happily complied by changing the permissions on my >classwork directory while leaving my non-coursework files readable. Seems to be the reasonable approach. I would have considered it acceptable to merely put the classword in a separate directory, that being equivalent to putting your classword in a drawer in the unlocked room (no lock on drawer). I consider locks (and the permission bits in UNIX filesystems) to be the thing to use WHEN I DO NOT TRUST PEOPLE. However I do not think it should be someone else's place to tell you who to trust and who not to trust. On the other hand, you may be accepting certain terms as part of your agreement to get what you have (a room, an account). -- /***********************************************************************\ | Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com | "The problem with | | depending on government is that you cannot depend on it" - Tony Brown | \***********************************************************************/ ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Feb 11 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) Subject: Article 13--Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Message-ID: <1992Feb11.080542.20333@Princeton.EDU> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1992 08:05:42 GMT In article jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers) writes: >kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >> So what's wrong with suppressing offensive speech? Here is John Stuart >> Mill's answer. >...which is fairly irrelevant because no one at CMU was arguing to >suppress speech that was merely offensive. The issue is about >suppressing speech that is intimidating, harassing, or sexually >harassing. Such speech, like the classic example of "Fire!" in a >crowded theatre, can be shown to do real harm. As I recall, the *actual* quote is *falsely* shouting Fire! in a crowded theater *AND CAUSING A PANIC.* i.e. It's the causing a panic which can be punished, *not* the shouting. More importantly, what harm can they "be shown to do"? The replies to Jefferson's messages certainly seemed intimidating and harassing to me. Does that mean that the people who sent it are guilty too? What exactly is the difference between offensive, intimidating, and harassing? -- David M. Nieporent niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu Orioles 1992 World Series Champs!!! Cal Ripken Jr -- 1992 AL MVP!!! ALEast 92:1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto 4.Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland "Less likely to need Ultra Slim Fast than Cecil Fielder" ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Feb 13 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy) Subject: Article 14--Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Message-ID: <1992Feb9.213333.3056@hubcap.clemson.edu> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1992 21:33:33 GMT jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers) writes: >kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >> So what's wrong with suppressing offensive speech? Here is John Stuart >> Mill's answer. >...which is fairly irrelevant because noone at CMU was arguing to >suppress speech that was merely offensive. The issue is about >suppressing speech that is intimidating, harassing, or sexually >harassing. Such speech, like the classic example of "Fire!" in a >crowded theatre, can be shown to do real harm. Unless, of course, there is a fire... If I were to walk up to a strange woman at CMU and ask her "Would you like to fuck?" and if she declined, simply walked away would I have been guilty of some "crime" other than sheer rudeness? What if I made a statement of fact -- "I would like to fuck you."? Perhap sI could get away from rudeness and delve into ignorance. Would I be punished for saying something like "All white people are bigots and secretly support the KKK"? What about "All black people should work in menial jobs since that is all they are mentally capable of doing"? What is it about some speech that makes it worse than other speech that you can quantify? And if so, how can you define such speech without violating your own policies? I doubt there's much that could be said that poses a clear and imminent danger without there being clear physical circumstances. Saying that you want people to go out and hang someone is not the same as having that someone at hand ready to hang and telling them to hang him. Mike Percy | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu | I don't know about Sr. Systems Analyst | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET | is really...bossy. Clemson University | (803) 656-3780 | (Laurie Anderson) ------------------------------ End of Computers and Academic Freedom News (Digest) ************************************