Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 02, No. 08 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.08 [Best of January, 1992 ========================== KEY ================================ The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. =============================================================== [Many of these paraphrases are based weekly paraphrases by Elizabeth, Paul, and me. - Carl] Notes 1-3 regard a recent controversy at Carnegie Mellon University involving issues of sexual harassment and freedom of speech. 1. As described in the Carnegie Mellon student newspaper 'The Tartan', student Eric Jefferson has had sexual harassment charges filed against him because of his postings to a CMU bulletin board for the Women's Center. <1992Jan28.223429.20426@eff.org> 2. Here is a ruling on sexual harassment from the university of Wisconsin which quite clearly indicates that Jefferson's postings did not and cannot constitute harassment. <1992Jan29.221441.18673@m.cs.uiuc.edu> 3. Jefferson's chastisement does not constitute a threat to freedom of speech - indeed, constitutional protections are irrelevant in a privately owned university. However, the more important issue is whether the university is more committed to the ideal of freedom of speech or to the ideal of the free exchange of ideas. The two are not the same, and the free expression of hatred can create an atmosphere in which ideas cannot be freely shared. <8dX8mdS00WBwAAGCdi@andrew.cmu.edu> Notes 4-5 discuss academic freedom and the right of sites to limit access to netnews. 4. At Iowa State University, by default, a machine does not receive the newsgroups alt.sex.*, alt.drugs, alt.psychoactives. The head of the department where the machines are located can request that the machines have access to the omitted groups. Students and staff are attempting to change the policy. <1992Jan24.160039.20161@news.iastate.edu> 5. "If universities are bound to keep their libraries free of arbitrary censorship, they are just as bound to keep Usenet free of arbitrary censorship, as Usenet has become nothing less than an electronic library of ideas." <1992Jan26.045844.10853@zip.eecs.umich.edu> Notes 6-7 concern the UC's court-ordered search of computer files. 6. Dean Pentcheff (dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu): This is a summary of the events surrounding "UC's court-ordered search of files on two of its Unix mainframe computers... [This summary is] based on my own understanding of what's going on. These are not "official" summaries, either from the University of California, or from the plaintiff in the case. I am not involved with the case in any capacity except as an interested observer." 7. There are some grave inconsistencies inherent in defining a user's files as 'university records'. For example, such a definition means that a user who reads *her or his own email* might violate of federal law. <1992Jan14.032659.8519@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Notes 8-9 describes the outcome of the recent Cubby vs. Compuserve case. 8. The effect of the Compuserve decisions has been to show that the more a computer-mediated forum is monitored, the greater the liability of the moderators/owners for what is said in that forum. If there is no censorship then liability rests entirely with the authors of individual posts. 9. Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org): By granting CompuServe's request for a summary judgment (finding CompuServe not liable), the court has strengthened first amendment protection for online services. The judge's decision holds that CompuServe was a distributor, not a publisher. Like a bookstore owner, CompuServe is not required to review everything it carries prior to providing it to its customers. <1992Jan6.204341.5096@eff.org> Notes 10-11 discuss the recent removal of software from users' accounts, computer suspendions before hearings, and searches of user files at the University of Wyoming, 10. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U Wyoming. I provided access to this software to other users. Upon receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all users who had used IRC. In order to get their accounts back, the users had to remove all IRC software from their accounts and agree not to use IRC on the computer. "After I agreed to do this, my (Cluster) account was reinabled and I was told 2 hours later it would be searched for IRC files. If any were ever found again, I would be disusered without hope for reinstatement." <3803321809011992_A11466_POSSE_11614C9F3200*@mrgate.uwyo.edu> 11. Even if the university was within its legal rights, did it have the moral right to take this action? Specifically, should the administrator have suspended the accounts before establishing that the user had done something wrong? (No.) And should he have searched user files without authorization? (No.) <199201101800.AA13167@eff.org> Note 12 is about Freedom of (impolite) Speech. 12. 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> - Carl] In this issue: Carl M. Kadie 95 Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Carl M. Kadie 119 > John G Myers 215 Fwd: I comment once. John Hascall 67 >Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment Brad Baillod 72 > Dean Pentcheff 215 UC computer searches: Summary #3. Carl M. Kadie 44 >hackers, crackers, privacy on KQED Rachel McGregor 194 >Effect of the Compuserve decision Mike Godwin 120 > Robert Wedlock 53 IRC outlawed at U Wyoming... Carl M. Kadie 59 - Carl M. Kadie 35 >Inappropriate Use by 2714sviatkos 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 Jan 27 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cmu.general,alt.censorship,alt.politics.correct From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 1--Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Message-ID: <1992Jan28.223429.20426@eff.org> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 22:34:29 GMT [Reprinted with permission - The Tartan vol 86 issue 14] By Matt Bushey Tartan News Co-editor Biology junior Eric Jefferson was accused of violating the University's sexual harassment policy this month after posting a number of questionable messages on the women's center Andrew bulletin board. A letter of complaint was given to Dean of student affairs Micheal Murphy concerning Eric Jefferson, who had posted messages which readers claimed were offensive and harassing towards women. The formal complaint was written by Todd Masco and signed by co-worker Chris Newman and student senator Josh Knauer. Alleged acts of harassment have occurred often over the past few years and have traditionally been handled by the office of student affairs. The first message posted by Jefferson was in response to a lecture by feminist Ann Simonton sponsored by the political speaker forum board. Jefferson posted his message to assocs.womens-center concerning his opinion towards feminism and the role of women in society. In his message, Jefferson writes, "I think that the biggest Nazis in the country today and the biggest threats to freedom of speech are feminists." Jefferson posted over ten more messages to the board expressing his opinions, including his liberal opinions about lesbians. According to Knauer, the comments made by Jefferson on the bboard were "personal attacks". Jefferson said, "I don't think they were offensive." and believes he didn't break the sexual harassment policy. "The way [the sexual harassment policy] is defined in the student handbook is really vague," said Jefferson. However, Knauer believes that Jefferson crossed the line of free speech. Knauer said, "The administration should say, 'Look, what you wrote is breaking the rules, whether they are right or not, and don't do it again.'" This happened on January 22 when the assistant dean of student affairs told Jefferson that if he continued to post his questionable messages a full disciplinary committee would make a ruling on his actions which could ultimately result in the expulsion of Jefferson from Carnegie Mellon. "I told her that I couldn't promise not to post any more messages," said Jefferson. Masco believes Jefferson's messages are a "clear case of harassment." and believes Jefferson's intent was to start an argument among the members of the women's center. "I don't see how it can be possible for any of his comments not to be taken as harassment," said Masco The sexual harassment policy states, "Carnegie Mellon University seeks to maintain a learning and work environment free from sexual harassment. Carnegie Mellon is dedicated to the free exchange of ideas and the intellectual development of all members of the community. For this exchange and development to take place, the environment must promote the confidence to work, to study, to innovate, and to perform without fear of harassment." The policy continues, "Carnegie Mellon University adopts the basic definition of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regarding sexual harassment as any unwelcome sexual advance, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when...such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonable interfering with an individual's work performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment." Masco agrees with Jefferson that that policy is weakly worded, but he doesn't see that as grounds for altering the policy. "It gives [the administration] the ability to act reasonably rather than tying themselves down to a specific course of action," said Masco. According to Murphy, The free speech and assembly policy states, "Carnegie Mellon University...encourages freedom of speech, assembly, and exchange of ideas. This includes the distribution of leaflets and petitions, as well as demonstrations or protests involving speaking, discussion, or the distribution of information." "All persons are permitted to distribute printed material, offer petitions for signature, make speeches and conduct other similar activities outside university buildings...The only limits on these activities are the rights of the members of the university community and the maintenance of the normal functioning of the university. No activities which harm individuals, damage or deface property, block access to university buildings, or disrupt classes will be permitted." -- 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 Jan 28 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 2--Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Message-ID: <1992Jan29.221441.18673@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 22:14:41 GMT cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes: >To be clearer, what if the issue here is HARRASSMENT, and not "politically >incorrect speech?" [...] >It's one thing to post, "All women are bitches," and another to post >"You ugly bitches." I don't see much difference. I do, however, see a difference between sending unwanted email to a person and posting an offensive-to-some article in a univeristy forum. Here is the U. of Wisconsin's old rule. This is rule was found to be to vague and broad by a federal judge, yet, it is clearer and narrower than the CMU rule. Notice that by definition harassment must be directed at an individual. ========== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ========== (2)(a) For racist or discriminatory comments, epithets or other expressive behavior directed at an individual or on separate occasions at different individuals, or for physical conduct, if such comments, epithets or other expressive behavior or physical conduct intentionally: 1. Demean the race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry or age of the individual or individuals; and 2. Create an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment for education, university-related work, or other university-authorized activity. (b) Whether the intent required under par. (a) is present shall be determined by consideration of all relevant circumstances. (c) In order to illustrate the types of conduct which this subsection is designed to cover, the following examples are set forth. These examples are not meant to illustrate the only situations or types of conduct intended to be covered. 1. A student would be in violation if: a. He or she intentionally made demeaning remarks to an individual based on that person's ethnicity, such as name calling, racial slurs, or "jokes"; and b. His or her purpose in uttering the remarks was to make the educational environment hostile for the person to whom the demeaning remark was addressed. 2. A student would be in violation if: a. He or she intentionally placed visual or written material demeaning the race or sex of an individual in that person's university living quarters or work area; and b. His or her purpose was to make the educational environment hostile for the person in whose quarters or work area the material was placed. 3. A student would be in violation if he or she seriously damaged or destroyed private property of any member of the university community or guest because of that person's race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry or age. 4. A student would not be in violation if, during a class discussion, he or she expressed a derogatory opinion concerning a racial or ethnic group. There is no violation, since the student's remark was addressed to the class as a whole, not to a specific individual. Moreover, on the facts as stated, there seems no evidence that the student's purpose was to create a hostile environment. *3 Wis. Admin. Code s UWS 17.06(2). [Judge's comments:] Thus, in order to be regulated under the UW Rule, a comment, epithet or other expressive behavior must: (1) Be racist or discriminatory; (2) Be directed at an individual; (3) Demean the race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry or age of the individual addressed; and (4) Create an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment for education, university-related work, or other university-authorized activity. In addition to the rule, the UW System issued and circulated to its students and faculty a brochure which explains the rule and provides guidance as to its scope and application. See Discriminatory Harassment: Prohibited Conduct Under Chapter UWS 17 Revisions. This guide provides some illustrations of situations where the UW Rule applies and does not apply: Question 1. In a class discussion concerning women in the workplace, a male student states his belief that women are by nature better equipped to be mothers than executives, and thus should not be employed in upper level management positions. Is this statement actionable under proposed UWS 17.06(2)? Answer: No. The statement is an expression of opinion, contains no epithets, is not directed to a particular individual, and does not, standing alone, evince the requisite intent to demean or create a hostile environment. Question 2. A student living in the University dormitory continually calls a black student living on his floor "nigger" whenever they pass in the hallway. May the university take action against the name-caller? Answer: Yes. The word "nigger" is an epithet, and is directed specifically at an individual. Its use and continuous repetition demonstrate the required intent on the part of the speaker to demean the individual and create a hostile living environment for him. Question 3. Two university students become involved in an altercation at an off-campus bar. During the fight one student used a racial epithet to prolong the dispute. May the university invoke a disciplinary action? Answer: Perhaps. Use of the epithet, and its direction to an individual suggests a potential violation of proposed s. UWS 17.06(2); however, because the episode occurred off campus, the intent to create a hostile environment for university-authorized activities would be difficult to demonstrate. Additional facts would have to be developed if disciplinary action were to be pursued. Question 4. A group of students disrupts a university class shouting discriminating epithets. Are they subject to disciplinary action under the provisions related to regulation of expressive behavior? Answer: Perhaps. It is clear that the students are subject to disciplinary action for disrupting a class under existing s. UWS 17.06(1)(c)3. The question is whether they also violated the newly created provision concerning expressive behavior, because they shouted epithets while in the course of other misconduct. If the epithets were directed to individuals within class, and were intending to demean them and create an intimidating environment, then the behavior might also be in violation of the provision concerning expressive misconduct. *4 Question 5. A faculty member, in a genetics class discussion, suggests that certain racial groups seem to be genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism. Is this statement subject to discipline under Chapter UWS 17? Answer: No. faculty member is in no case subject to discipline under Chapter UWS 17, since that chapter applies only to students. This situation would not warrant disciplinary action under any other policy, either, since it is protected expression of an idea. ============================ end ======================= - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Jan 30 00:00:00 1992 From: jm36+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Gardiner Myers) Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Article 3--Fwd: I comment once. Message-ID: <8dX8mdS00WBwAAGCdi@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: 3 Feb 92 00:28:25 GMT Here is one the complainant's final word on the subject, as posted on the Women's Center's discussion bboard. ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- I'm going to say this once. I have no interest in becoming embroiled in a lengthy argument. Eric's chastisement is hardly a threat to free speech. Firstly, bboards are privately owned. Constitutional protections don't count for anything on private property. The university is NOT the government, and there actions with their property have nothing to do with governmental restrictions, as in "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." A more important question is: what is more important to the university community, the intellectual commitment to free speech or the commitment to the free exchange of ideas? They are not identical. Attempts to reduce discussions into heated exchanges of emotionally charged rhetoric block the free exchange of ideas. Participants lose perspective and what might have become an exchange where individuals walked away with a better understanding of their opposites' opinion instead walk away with In many cases, extreme emotional reaction to opinions can be considered unreasonable, a mark of immaturity. However, there are certain areas which are particularly sensitive due to our culture's history. Old biases that are the direct cause of past oppression leave scars even when the explicit oppression is past. Carnegie Mellon recognizes such areas through its harassment policies, singling out harassment on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. The need for the existence of the Women's Center is largely due to the biases our culture introduces, placing the male in the role of protector and provider and the female in the role of nurturing house-maker. Such roles also include the implicit retaliation, whether physical or social, against those who refuse to live those roles. These self-propagating roles are largely artificial (see research by Masters and Johnson, particularly the "Gender Roles" chapter of _Masters and Johnson on Sex and Human Loving_). These roles are also obsolete. As a society, we have consciously decided that differences in gender are not relevant to the possession of rights and protection under the law, but society lags behind, leaving sensitive scars. Women resist, often cautiously, their old submissive roles, but frequently distrust men on the basis of the old gender roles. This same change leaves men who have never accepted either set of gender roles in a sensitive position as well. It isn't a matter of the "Alan Alva sensitivity" that is so often sneered at. It's a matter of implicitly being accused for crimes of oppression that one has not committed, of living with the mistrust of half the human race because of progenitor's crimes. As far as I'm concerned, Eric's posts were an attempt at harassment (he has stated that he was trying to start a flame war) that had the effect casting me and other males in a supporting role, a role that I bitterly reject. His harassment was directly opposed to University policy, and I called him on it. Pure and simple. There is a tendency for people to cry "free speech" whenever anybody is held accountable for the action of posting. This cry is inappropriate when said speech was directly aimed for particularly sensitive spots left by our culture with the clear intention to hurt, whether the harm was for its own sake or whether that harm is intended to elicit a spirited response. Why are people objecting to the gentle enforcement (how can the university's handling be characterized as anything but gentle? No punitive actions were taken) of the harassment policy, but not to the harassment policy itself? [[signature elided --jgm]] Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 02, No. 06 [Week ending February 9. 1992 [This week's guest editor is Adam C. Gross, ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu. The February 2nd issue is still in production. - Carl] ========================== KEY ================================ The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. =============================================================== Notes 1-6 are about the Eric Jefferson case at Carnegie Mellon, where a student was accused of sexual harrasement because of a series of his postings to a local bboard. 1. The university's threats of an investigation if the postings don't stop promotes self censorship. <46750.298C2BB3@psycho.fidonet.org> 2. "Users were and are free at any time to refrain from reading articles from the poster in question. They apparently did not do so. Therefore, they _chose_ to read more from the poster, thus invalidating the unwantedness criterion of the EEO definition. [of sexual harresment]" <9202032245.AA03081@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> 3. Public universities are probhibited from banning 'politically incorrect' speech because of the _Doe v. U. of Michigan_ and _UWM Post v. U. of Wisconsin_ rulings. <1992Feb4.210805.11317@eff.org> 4. [A CMU student:] The university supported mail readers do not allow a user to suppress another individuals posts. <0dXzHyC00UgII0ilcP@andrew.cmu.edu> 5. "CMU is embarking on a slippery slope, as do all who wish to supress expression for any reason. It is impossible to objectively determine what might be "intimidating, harassing, or sexually harassing." The search for truth is compromised when _any_ expression is supressed." <9202071322.AA09866@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil> 6. [A CMU student:] "[This] IS about suppressing speech that was merely offensive." "[H]ow can it be harassment when one can easily ignore the message or not even read it at all?" Notes 7-9 are about the disclosure of personal information on the U of Illinois systems through such programs as finger. 7. [A U of Illinois student:] "Before the new software was installed, an account holder could alter how he/she was identified when another computer user on the same or a connected system requested information about that person using the finger program. The current software has the fingerd program return part or all of the person's legal name. I must protest this change, and request that the problem be fixed." <1992Feb3.224647.28831@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 8. [A member of the U of Illinois Computing Services Office:] "CCSO believes the perception of anonymity leads to increased belligerence and decreased sense of responsiblity for one's actions. The fact that one is ultimately traceable does not have the same effect as being immediately identified." <1992Feb4.193335.16780@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 9. Under what curcumstances can the university disclose or require personal information about a student? Enclosed excerpts from the Family Education and Privacy Rights of Act provide a partial answer. <1992Feb6.233159.24859@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Note 10 is about the availability of some newsgroups at U of Oregon. 10. [The director of Network Services at the U of Oregon:] Techincal limitations of the most popular Mac newsreader force limited USENET availability. <199202052354.AA01561@eff.org> - Adam] In this issue: Howard Goldstein 49 Speech Restrictions On Cm Robert F Solon 90 >Speech restrictions on CMU computers Carl M. Kadie 27 >Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards John W Hollis 23 > Robert F Solon 57 The Dark Ages Revisited (<>Re: Supression on speech on CM C M Restifo 50 >Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards Memphis TN 81 Complaint letter about fingerd change Steve Dorner 71 >an open letter to the cso.gods Carl M. Kadie 138 Requiring students to release directory information JQ Johnson 33 >Usenet News Selection Policies 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) 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, 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 Jan 24 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,misc.legal From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) Subject: Article 4--Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment Message-ID: <1992Jan24.160039.20161@news.iastate.edu> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1992 16:00:39 GMT -=[I only work and go to school here, this is opinion, not official policy]=- That much said.... morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes: }kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: }>> If ISU has never carried those }>>groups, they are well within their rights to refuse to start now. The original policy was open access. }The thing that concerns me the most is the original poster's statement }that "a majority of students cannot read alt.sex.*". Does this mean }that some students CAN read those groups? Which students? What systems? }If they are offering certain newsgroups to only certain students on a }particular machine, we definitely have a mess on our hands; I'll be }arguing right beside you that this is wrong. By default a machine does not receive: alt.sex, alt.sex.*, alt.psychoactives, alt.personals.bondage, alt.drugs (or any of the new erotic binary groups whatever their names are) }However, it could be that some particular machines have made their own }arrangements for news feeds. That would make each site responsible for }its newsgroups selection and put a different spin on things. The person in charge of the machines (generally the head of the dept where the machines are located) can sign a form requesting: a) no groups be censored b) all alt.* and rec.* be censored The net result being: machines in faculty/staff offices have the full feed (unless the dept head is a real ___) machines available to students don't. Also many people are concerned about appearing on what has become known as the `perverts list' (those signing up for option "a" above). }Could someone from ISU PLEASE post a copy of this "new policy", or some }more details (if an actual copy isn't available)? We really need more }information before we start picking this apart. A group of students & staff has formed to work to change the policy. This group has been meeting with the Comp Ctr (interim) director to discuss their concerns about this policy and to propose changes and alternatives. Progress appears to be being made in a couple of areas: a) The director is likely going to remove all of the textual groups from the restricted by default category. b) A proposal has been submitted by the group to the director outlining a policy and mechanism for personal choice based on personal responsibility. -=[I only work and go to school here, this is opinion, not official policy]=- John -- John Hascall Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain Project Vincent Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu Ames, IA 50011 515/294-9551 [fax -1717] ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Jan 26 00:00:00 1992 From: baillod@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Brad Baillod) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal,alt.censorship Subject: Article 5--Re: Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment Message-ID: <1992Jan26.045844.10853@zip.eecs.umich.edu> Date: 26 Jan 92 04:58:44 GMT In article <1992Jan25.193640.25341@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: >Does this mean that every government entity cannot choose to edit or >otherwise restrict that material which it carries? Absolutely not. >... >Does this mean they are preventing you from reading ALT.SEX? Absolutely >not. You are perfectly free to call up any system you wish that carries >ALT.SEX and read it. You are perfectly free to pay UUNET or another >commercial service provider for uninterrupted access to ALT.SEX via a >newsfeed to your personal system. > >Now, if the university or state involked a law which stated that you are >prohibited from calling another system to read ALT.SEX, or you could not >call UUNET to get a newsfeed of ALT.SEX, then *THAT* is a restriction on >your 1st amendment rights. > >Your right to free speech does not extend itself to include complete, >unrestricted access to the state's possessions. You have no more right >to read ALT.SEX on a university computer than you have to use an M-1 >tank owned by the Department of Defense. > >The state has no duty to provide anything other than a computer system >which is used for the purposes of completing classroom assignments, >administrative work, etc. Anything above and beyond those duties are >"perks". Perks are completely up to the discretion of the managing >individual. It seems to me, however, that the people responsible for usenet policy in most places are treating newsgroups as library-like material. The fact that they exist, and that they are used for discussion of a wide range of topics already, means that they fall under the same standards as libraries. The government and the universities may not have originally intended to have the various *nets used for discussion of sex and politics, but creating the rec groups and ultimately the alt groups also created a responsibility for unbiased administration of these groups. Take your second-to-last paragraph and substitute "read 'The Joy of Sex' in a university library" for "read ALT.SEX on a university computer system" and see how it sounds. The fact is, the government is NOT our "management," it is our employee, and we DO have the right to use a good deal of its property; libraries are one such example. If Usenet was used strictly for educational and research purposes, then censors would have a valid argument for keeping non-research and non-educational material off it. But given that we have rec.motorcycles, talk.politics.mideast, rec.sewing and alt.fan.jiro-nakamura on Usenet, it is arbitrary and capricious to censor alt.sex, and, in fact, against what the goal of Usenet has become. Usenet has progressed far beyond being a research tool; it is now a form of mass communication. The group hierarchies in Usenet's original setup testify to the fact that it was never meant to be strictly a research tool, and it has come to fill its desired role nicely. If universities are bound to keep their libraries free of arbitrary censorship, they are just as bound to keep Usenet free of arbitrary censorship, as Usenet has become nothing less than an electronic library of ideas. The argument "censorship is not censorship if you can get the material >from another source" is not valid. Does this mean that poor people are excluded from the exchange of ideas? If libraries are censored, those of us with enough money can get the books ourselves. This does not make censorship of libraries okay. Universities would be within their rights to shut down all of Usenet except the groups directly related to research and discussion in university fields of study. But to arbitrarily censor newsgroups on sexual topics when so many topics are discussed is a violation of the freedom of thought that Universities stand for, and should be no more permitted than censorship of library materials. -- Brad Baillod baillod@eecs.umich.edu From caf-talk Fri Jan 17 00:00:00 1992 Xref: eff comp.org.eff.talk:6023 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2880 ba.politics:2473 uc.general:17 Path: eff!iWarp.intel.com|uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!dean2 From: dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu (Dean Pentcheff) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,ba.politics,ucb.general,uc.general Subject: UC computer searches: Summary #3. Message-ID: Date: 18 Jan 92 00:14:42 GMT Article-I.D.: agate.knesbiINN8d1 Sender: Dean Pentcheff Reply-To: dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu (Dean Pentcheff) Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk Organization: Department of Integrative Biology, UC Berkeley Lines: 212 NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu Friday Jan 17, 1992 UC computer search summary number 3. - Dean Pentcheff (dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu) ==================================================== This is the third (and probably final) in a short series of summaries I've provided regarding the UC's court-ordered search of files on two of its Unix mainframe computers. I will maintain the mailing list of interested parties, just in case something else comes up. If you have a continuing interest in these issues, please see the end of this summary for suggestions on where to find more information. **Please note** This summary (and the preceeding two) are based on my own understanding of what's going on. These are not "official" summaries, either from the University of California, or from the plaintiff in the case. I am not involved with the case in any capacity except as an interested observer. A brief summary of the case runs as follows (based primarily on a discussion with the University counsel involved). This repeats some information contained in earlier postings, but also corrects some misunderstandings. A UC student is alleged to have broken into a UC computer system. The University has initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. Based on due process requirements, the student's family has retained a lawyer and computer experts and gone to court to get court orders for certain University maintained records for the disciplinary hearing. NOTE: the only involvement of the court is to order (or not order, as the case may be) the University to divulge records. Contrary to my previous postings, the student's family is not suing the University. They are preparing a case for the University disciplinary hearing, and are using the court purely to require the University to provide evidence they feel is important to the hearing. There is no "discovery procedure" involved. The judge involved is not particularly familiar either with electronic communications law or computers. The strategy of the student's case seems to be to obfuscate and complicate the entire sequence of hearings as much as possible in an attempt to nullify the whole disciplinary action. Hence, they requested that the court order the University to produce all University maintained student records on the student in question. The key question here is the interpretation of "university maintained records." The simple interpretation of the California State Buckley Amendment is that a student is entitled access to conventional administrative or faculty records of their university progress. In this case, the student's lawyers chose to push an interpretation that made university maintained records encompass any record about the student that exists on university maintained systems. The student's lawyers informed the judge that it would be simple to just have the University search _all_ backups for the mainframes for anything relevant. The University lawyers figuratively coughed and sputtered, saying this was _most_ impractical. The judge, unwilling (and unable) to decide between the claims of the lawyers arguing in front of him, ordered them out into the hall to come up with a compromise. The lawyers bargained and came up with a deal: the University would search some specific backups and the online disks for files that contain the student's name. The University fought to search only for files that contained both the student's first and last name. The student's lawyers wanted files that contained the first or the last name. The judge, unwilling to accept the University's claim that the latter option would produce too much, ordered the University to do a search to determine how much text would actually be located by these searches. At this point, the University posted a message on the mainframes, telling all users that they intended to search the disks on two of the campus mainframes for any files "that may contain a particular individual's name..." At this point, also, the University lawyers became aware of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Considering that this case was too complicated already, realizing that they already accepted a court order to search, and feeling that the ECPA might not actually apply to this search, they chose not to mount a secondary effort to stop the search. The Electronic Frontier Foundation became interested in the case, but discovered that they had been contacted by the plaintiff last year and had given him some help. This provides a potential conflict of interest, so they have been carefully investigating their options. At this point, the University has proceeded with the search, as ordered by the court (though I'm not sure whether it's the first and last name search or the first or last name search). The files that are located by this procedure will be inspected. Any that are not relevant to the disciplinary proceeding will not be divulged. If, for example, someones mailbox file with 50 letters in it is a "hit", only the individual letters that are relevant to the case will be extracted and printed. All interaction with the court is complete. The disciplinary hearing itself will occur in a few weeks. What's the upshot? Files (including electronic mail files) on two mainframes at UC Berkeley have been electronically searched (under court order) for a particular character string. The University resisted the search, not on grounds of protection of privacy, but simply on the grounds of undue burden. The next few paragraphs summarize my own reactions to the incident, and are no longer "news" summaries. The clearest lesson of this incident is the exposure of lack of knowledge of information privacy issues. This applies both to the the court and to the University counsel's office. Apparently the judge involved (who is nearing retirement), asked the lawyers to send him a letter, once he's retired, explaining what was _really_ being argued in front of him, since it clearly had little to do with a simple minded request for student records. The "moral" of the story is that the EFF, the Association for Computing Machinery, and other organizations definitely have an important job ahead of them. We need clear policies and leadership on issues of electronic privacy. We definitely need to educate the legal profession, legislators, and the general public on these issues. Actual damage to users' privacy? Pretty minimal (in my opinion). The University computer center has done its best to be as nonintrusive as possible while still complying with the court order. Theoretical damage to users' privacy? Perhaps not so minimal. As students, faculty, or staff using the University's mainframes, what expectation of privacy do we have? Technically, it is trivial for anyone with systems privilege to go on a fishing expedition for any character string. Under what circumstances, though, is this permissible? The issues in this case (users' privacy vs. right of access to records) are not clear cut. What constitutes a university record of a student? What legal protection's do computer user's files have? I don't know. Nor does the University legal staff, the local courts, or the University computer administration. I find that disturbing. ======================================================================== Further sources of information on issues of electronic privacy and freedom of information. ************************************************************ THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been established to civilize the electronic frontier; to make it useful and beneficial not just to a technical elite, but to everyone; and to do this in keeping with our society's highest traditions of the free and open flow of information and communication." You can request to be added to the EFF mailing list by sending a note to "eff-request@eff.org". Alternatively, you can subscribe to the moderated Usenet newsgroup "comp.org.eff.news" (which carries everything sent out on the mailing list). You are also welcome to participate in the unmoderated Usenet news group "comp.org.eff.talk". You can get more information about the EFF via anonymous FTP from the site "eff.org" (Internet number 192.88.144.3). Send electronic mail to "ftphelp@eff.org" if you have questions or are unable to use FTP. EFF ADDRESS: The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc. 155 Second Street Cambridge, MA 02142 +1 617 864 0665 +1 617 864 0866 FAX THE EFF STAFF: Mitchell Kapor, President and Co-founder (mkapor@eff.org); John Perry Barlow, Co-founder (barlow@eff.org); Michael Godwin, General Counsel (mnemonic@eff.org); Gerard Van der Leun, Director of Communications (van@eff.org); Christopher Davis, System Administrator (ckd@eff.org); Helen Rose, System Administrator (hrose@eff.org); Rita Rouvalis, Administrator (rita@eff.org) THE EFF BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Jerry Berman, John Perry Barlow, Stewart Brand, Esther Dyson, John Gilmore, Mitchell Kapor, Steve Wozniak. ************************************************************ USENET NEWSGROUPS If you subscribe to Usenet news, there are several newsgroups that may be of interest to you: comp.risks A long running, well respected, moderated group that deals with the risks of computers in society. comp.org.eff.talk Discussions of privacy and freedom of information in the computer age. comp.org.eff.news Moderated group of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk alt.comp.acad-freedom.news Two other newsgroups dealing with issues of academic freedom. If you don't know what Usenet news is, but are reading this message via electronic mail, there's a good chance that your system supports the Usenet news, but you just don't know about it. Check for information about the "rn" command, or ask your systems administrator how you can subscribe to Usenet news. -- Dean Pentcheff (Internet: dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu) Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720 Work Phone: (510) 643-9048 Home Phone: (510) 839-1790 Fax: (510) 643-6264 -- Dean Pentcheff (Internet: dean2@garnet.berkeley.edu) Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720 Work Phone: (510) 643-9048 Home Phone: (510) 839-1790 Fax: (510) 643-6264 From cafnews Fri Dec 13 16:15:02 1991 From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: hackers, crackers, privacy on KQED Message-ID: <1992Jan14.032659.8519@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 14 Jan 92 03:26:59 GMT References: <1992Jan11.083311.25336@odin.corp.sgi.com> <1992Jan13.235159.3451@eff.org> <1992Jan14.014608.5742@odin.corp.sgi.com> lear@oni.sgi.com (Eliot Lear) writes: [...] >A communication becomes a record once it is delivered to the final >addressees. One could argue that only *official* communications are >covered, but it's a red herring. Not for students, like me, who are not employees of the University. > After all, if I, in my capacity as >system administrator at Podunk U. mail my boss alerting him to a >break-in and student X's account that was broken into/did the breaking >in, is that not an official record? [...] Maybe. But email between student A and student B about student X (archived in the home directories of A and B), should not be considered a University maintained record about X. If it is 1) The A&B's email could not be disclosed to any nonuniversity personnel without X's consent. In other words, A&B could not read their own email archive. 2) X could see A&B's email 3) X could demand a hearing to challenge and possibly amend inaccurate information in A&B's email. 4) The University must make a "reasonble effort" to notify students mentioned in the email before releasing the email under a subpoena. Timely notice is to allow the students mentioned the opportunity to contest the validity of the subpoena on their own behalf. 5) All requests for disclosure would need to be logged. The log becomes part of X's record (and A's and B's) (Based on _Your Right To Privacy_, 2nd edition, by Even Hendricks, et al) - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign From caf-talk Sun Jan 19 00:00:00 1992 From: rogue@cellar.org (Rachel McGregor) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision Message-ID: Date: 18 Jan 92 18:54:35 GMT Harry.Lee@p0.f10.n396.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Harry Lee) writes: > I wasn't clear. Consider the following two situations: let's say I get > what you call rec.funny (?) or what we would call Humor. Let's assume that > in the main, these conferences don't violate prevailing community standards. > However, perhaps 1% of the traffic is questionable. You seem to be saying > that if I post-screen, my liability is small. But in the other case, if I > pre-screen, and I let something through that does violate prevailing > community standards, would my liability be greater? > > I hope I don't seem pedantic here. And I hope I don't blow Mike's argument. I believe what Mike is saying (colored by my own interpretation, natch) is that a censor bears some liability for the material he or she approves. If you run your system with a policy of no censorship, or at least one in which you remove offensive or illegal messages only after a complaint has been made to you, your liability is less than if you held messages in a pre-screening area before you released them to the bbs. There are four ways to censor messages on a system. With each policy, your liability increases with they level of the censor's activism. Least activist: No censorship 2: Evaluation and/or removal of offensive messages after a user has complained to you about them. 3: Your decision, based on your interpretation of the board's community standards, to remove a message you've seen after a user posted it, regardless of how long it's been visible to the user community. Most activist: Messages must be pre-screened by you or another user before they will be released into the public message bases. After a user posts a message, it is held for your next login and approval based on your interpretation of community standards. Censorship in the most activist case above carries the implication that if an offensive message is posted, it reached the public because of the agreement or negligence of the censor. Therefore, the censor can be held responsible for the message and the effects of its release. (In no case does it absolve the original author, though, if there is a criminal intent behind the message.) (Just to remind you: I'm not a lawyer, just another bitch with an opinion.) ---- Rachel McGregor | "Once in a wile an idea comes along that is so wonderful rogue@cellar.org | that you forget it immediately." Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 02, No. 04 [Week ending January 26, 1992 ========================== KEY ================================ The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. =============================================================== Notes 1-4 discuss whether unauthenticated dial-in Internet access should be provided. 1. The problem with providing unauthenticated Internet access is that it is not possible to trace responsibility for an action back to its source. <25353.Jan1904.08.2692@virtualnews.nyu.edu> 2. MIT's TERMINUS provides anonymous access by default. It has been and will be used by crackers. If someone has an Internet machine, they are responsible for that machine; no one takes responsibility for TERMINUS. <4342.Jan2010.33.3392@virtualnews.nyu.edu> 3. A partial solution to authentication problems is RFC 931. If the originating machine runs an RFC 931-compliant server, other hosts can find out which user owns the connection from that host to their machine. An archive address is provided. <26789.Jan1907.36.0392@virtualnews.nyu.edu> 4. "Net access is not a right; civil liberties do not apply to the base issue of network access (they can apply to specific services, such as netnews)." <1992Jan21.110534.11426@ms.uky.edu> Notes 5-6 discuss the right of an administrator at anonymous FTP site to remove material protected by copyright. 5. A crack program was uploaded to an anonymous FTP area. The program appeared to contain portions of a game copyrighted by Sierra. "... having a publicly writeable upload area does not give someone else the right to place anything they want there, as it is not a public forum." <1992Jan20.225330.1164@ulowell.ulowell.edu> 6. The upsetting part of the administrator's action was that he said he would notify system administrators. That notification may assume illegal actions, when ignorance was actually the cause. <27624@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> Notes 7-10 discuss academic freedom and the right of sites to limit access to netnews. 7. At Iowa State University, by default, a machine does not receive the newsgroups alt.sex.*, alt.drugs, alt.psychoactives. The head of the department where the machines are located can request that the machines have access to the omitted groups. Students and staff are attempting to change the policy. <1992Jan24.160039.20161@news.iastate.edu> 8. The first amendment does not mean that a government entity cannot edit or restrict the material it carries. "Your right to free speech does not extend itself to include complete, unrestricted access to the state's possessions." <1992Jan25.193640.25341@anomaly.sbs.com> 9. Iowa State is not required to provide netnews. They may limit which groups they carry. However, they have a moral responsibility not to censor articles in a newsgroup. <1992Jan26.170429.27078@eff.org> 10. "If universities are bound to keep their libraries free of arbitrary censorship, they are just as bound to keep Usenet free of arbitrary censorship, as Usenet has become nothing less than an electronic library of ideas." <1992Jan26.045844.10853@zip.eecs.umich.edu> Note 11 discusses security and privacy issues raised by a proposed public directory service. 11. The North American Directory Forum (NADF) introduced a "User Bill of Rights" to address security and privacy issues regarding entries and listings in its proposed cooperative X.500 public directory service. The proposed bill of rights is included. <9201232252.AA04537@psi.com> - Paul] In this issue: Dan Bernstein 56 >Announcing AntiTERM: The Anti-TERMINUS Alliance! Dan Bernstein 51 > Dan Bernstein 43 > Wes Morgan 85 >[alt.security] Re: Announ<> AntiTERM: The Anti-TERMINUS Brian ' O'Neill 44 Copyrights and program cracks.... Dennis Lou 45 >Distributing program cracks #10000000000000 John Hascall 66 >Duties of state universities regarding 1st amendment Michael Deignan 69 > Carl M. Kadie 48 > Brad Baillod 72 > M L Schoffstall 86 Norther American Director<>troduces "User Bill of Rights" 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) 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, 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-news Fri Jan 24 08:49:01 1992 From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) Subject: Re: Effect of the Compuserve decision Message-ID: <1992Jan6.204341.5096@eff.org> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 20:43:41 GMT In article <1992Jan5.144430.23171@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> an104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ric Helton) writes: >What, if any, effect did the decision have that held Compuserve >not liable for the contents of the newsletter defaming some other >individual have on the rest of the industry? Is this a signal from >the court that they are ready to treat online systems as common >carriers, or grant some other protections such as a library or >bookstore or whatever might have? What is the state of sysop >liability? The following is an editorial that will appear in the next issue of EFFector Online: THE COMPUSERVE CASE: A STEP FORWARD IN FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION FOR ONLINE SERVICES. By Mike Godwin (mnemonic@eff.org) By now you may have heard about the summary-judgment decision in Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, a libel case. What you may not know is why the decision is such an important one. By holding that only if CompuServe had "actual knowledge" of the defamation would it be liable, the court in this case correctly analyzed the First Amendment needs of most online services. And because it's the first decision to deal directly with these issues, this case may turn out to be a model for future decisions in other courts. The full name of the case, which was decided in the Southern District of New York, is Cubby Inc. v. CompuServe. Basically, CompuServe contracted with a third party for that user to conduct a special-interest forum on CompuServe. The plaintiff claimed that defamatory material about its business was posted a user in that forum, and sued both the forum host and CompuServe. CompuServe moved for, and received, summary judgment in its favor. Judge Leisure held in his opinion that CompuServe is less like a publisher than like a bookstore owner or book distributor. First Amendment law allows publishers to be liable for defamation, but not bookstore owners, because holding the latter liable would create a burden on bookstore owners to review every book they carry for defamatory material. This burden would "chill" the distribution of books (not to mention causing some people to get out of the bookstore business) and thus would come into serious conflict with the First Amendment. So, although we often talk about BBSs as having the rights of publishers and publications, this case hits on an important distinction. How are publishers different from bookstore owners? Because we expect a publisher (or its agents) to review everything prior to publication. But we *don't* expect bookstore owners to review everything prior to sale. Similarly, in the CompuServe case, as in any case involving an online service in which users freely post messages for the public (this excludes Prodigy), we wouldn't expect the online-communications service provider to read everything posted *before* allowing it to appear. It is worth noting that the Supreme Court case on which Judge Leisure relies is Smith v. California--an obscenity case, not a defamation case. Smith is the Supreme Court case in which the notion first appears that it is generally unconstitutional to hold bookstore owners liable for content. So, if Smith v. California applies in a online-service or BBS defamation case, it certainly ought to apply in an obscenity case as well. Thus, Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe sheds light not only on defamation law as applied in this new medium but on obscenity law as well. This decision should do much to clarify to concerned sysops what their obligations and liabilities are under the law. ---------- Highlights of the CompuServe decision (selected by Danny Weitzner): "CompuServe's CIS [CS Information Service] product is in essence an electronic, for-profit library that carries a vast number of publications and collects usage and membership fees from its subscribers in return for access to the publications. CompuServe and companies like it are at the forefront of the information industry revolution. High technology has markedly increased the speed with which information is gathered and processed; it is now possible for an individual with a personal computer, modem, and telephone line to have instantaneous access to thousands of news publications from across the United States and around the world. While CompuServe may decline to carry a given publication altogether, in reality, once it does decide to carry a given publication, it will have little or no editorial control over that publication's contents. This is especially so when CompuServe carries the publication as part of a forum that is managed by a company unrelated to CompuServe. "... CompuServe has no more editorial control over ... [the publication in question] ... than does a public library, book store, or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for CompuServe to examine every publication it carries for potentially defamatory statements than it would for any other distributor to do so." "...Given the relevant First Amendment considerations, the appropriate standard of liability to be applied to CompuServe is whether it knew or had reason to know of the allegedly defamatory Rumorville statements." Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc. (90 Civ. 6571, SDNY) -- Mike Godwin, | Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper (USNR Ret.) mnemonic@eff.org | 1906-1992 (617) 864-0665 | Requiescat in pace. EFF, Cambridge | ------------------- From caf-news Fri Jan 24 08:55:53 1992 From: RWED@corral.uwyo.edu (Robert Wedlock) Subject: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming... Message-ID: <3803321809011992_A11466_POSSE_11614C9F3200@mrgate.uwyo.edu> Date: 10 Jan 92 01:38:00 GMT Hello... this is Surfdog/Zonker I wanted to tell all the operators about what happened to IRC here at the University of Wyoming, to show what a can of worms it might potentially be. You probably want to make real sure that the admins of the computers it will be used on know exactly what it is. Anyway... Wyoming has 1 university here in Laramie. However the 7 community colleges located about the state have direct access to our network (129.72). And hence they get accounts on our main computer.. a cluster of 2 VAX 8800's running VMS5.4-2. By virtue of being a student at a college in Wyoming you are granted a VMS account. It was on this cluster (outlaw/posse) that I compiled a client for VMS and gave people easy access to. Then, on another ultrix system (master) I installed a server. Master is a computer on which grad students & students with projects may use. Anyway root@master got a few complaints about IRC. Over 20 people at the University of Wyoming were dis-usered. (people who "system" knew used IRC. (system is like root for a VMS machine) In order to get thier accounts back, they must remove all traces of IRC from thier directories and agree to refrain from IRC-related activities while on the cluster. After I agreed to do this, my (Cluster) account was reinabled and I was told 2 hours later it would be searched for IRC files. If any were ever found again, I would be disusered without hope for reinstatement. I dont know whats going to happen to the ultrix account. I have to attend a meeting to discuss things about it. MAster has been down all day, so I dont know... anyway.. The consultant I talked to about it said that "IRC was like a disease, you'd get someone an account and minutes later she'd see the files in their directory". I feel really bad about having a hand in so many people losing their accounts :( I send a CC of the letter I wrote to my admin about removing IRC to operlist so you can see... Learn from my experience... be very careful what you do with your access to computers.. that can really get you in trouble.. ------------------- From caf-news Fri Jan 24 08:56:33 1992 From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: IRC outlawed at U Wyoming... Message-ID: <199201101800.AA13167@eff.org> Sender: kadie References: <9201101641.AA05345@vangogh.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 10 Jan 92 08:00:56 GMT In open email chelsea@vangogh.CS.Berkeley.EDU writes > As long at the university is paying for the network services, paying > for the equipment, paying for the people to maintain and operate the > equipment, etc, then they can do WHATEVER they like. The equipment is > private owned. Like any organization, a public university must work within its charter and rules. For state university, this includes the U.S. Constitution, the state constitution, and the rules set down in the university's Student Code. These documents constrain the university and its agents. Specifically, they prohibit unreasonable searches and they require some due process. [see ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional and ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/constraints.contractual and ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/README] Beyond legal responsibilities, a university and its agents also have a moral responsibility to respect the academic freedom of its users. > By dragging in lawyers, My original note made no mention of law or lawyers. The statement that I quoted, the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedom of Students, does not have the force of law. It does, however, have great moral force, having been endorsed by, for example, the American Association of University Professors, the U.S. National Student Association, and the Association of American Colleges. The thesis of my original note was that two actions by the University of Wyoming's were *morally* wrong. Specially, it was wrong for the University to suspend users from the computer system before establishing that they had done something wrong. Also, it was wrong for the university to search user computer files without the same kind of authorization that would be needed to search a professor's file cabinet in University-assigned office space. > and trying to fight this ruling, > is feeding the growing fire of animosity towards irc. Give it up. The > site is gone. Push your luck, and then only organizations like eff.org > and std.com will have irc. I am sad that we lost a site as important > as that, however, its a good example for the rest of us. [...] My note did not address the wisdom or propriety of prohibiting IRC. My note did not address the wisdom or propriety of challenging the prohibition. -- 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: 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. ------------------- ------------------------------ End of Computers and Academic Freedom News (Digest) ************************************