Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.12 (Digest) Approved: kadie@eff.org Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 02, No. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu (Adam C. Gross) Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.12 [Week ending March 8, 1992 [This is issue #12. Issues #13, #14, #17, and #18 are in production.] Correction: To get the bibliography on database security mentioned in issue #16, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send acad-freedom/books pernul,_g - Carl] ========================== KEY ================================ The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. =============================================================== Notes 1-5 are about SWITCH's policy of not carrying certain newsgroups 1. "SWITCH may be a private organization, but as information provider to institutions of higher education they have a moral responsibility to _not_ use their position to manipulate which information the public is exposed to and which it isn't." <1992Mar2.025634.13544@mtholyoke.edu> 2. "The right to publish what we want is important, but the right not to be told by others what you *must* publish or transmit is of equal importance. These two rights are the two sides of freedom of expression." <1992Mar02.082931.21643@clarinet.com> 3. "In addition to banning some usenet newsgroups, SWITCH is also blocking packets to the local eunet chapter (chuug). We have to route most packets from Zurich to Geneva and back to Zurich. Others go as far as Amsterdam, and, yes, still others go to the USA and come back (hee hee). SWITCH is blocking nntp, telnet and ftp to local sites connected to eunet." <1992Mar2.135005.14877@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> 4. "And when a USENET feed decides that it will not carry certain newsgroups, you are free to get your own feed from somewhere else. It isn't convenient, it isn't as cheap, maybe, but nobody said that USENET had to be convenient and cheap. And it certainly isn't censorship." <1992Mar3.003102.27987@talon.ucs.orst.edu> 5. [A user from Switzerland] "Can the government (or a governmental organisation) decide on anarbitrary basis to cut some perfectly legal newsgroups and let others pass freely?" <1992Mar3.184031@litsun.epfl.ch> Notes 6-9 are about game and IRC policies in light of U of Cincinnati move to terminate accounts of users who telnet to "game" and IRC hosts. 6. "Yes, the users have to become responsible with the use of the resources and get involved in policy-making. But the administrators should help in this process by asking for input, opening policy meetings, and by acting less arbitrarily upon the users they are trying to serve." <1992Mar1.230835.9357@ms.uky.edu> 7. A student defends the right to telnet to foriegn hosts because it is often for valid academic reasons. <199203022336.AA12510@eff.org> 8. "If I was asked to hire a programmer I would much rather hire someone who was familiar with the resources available on the net, becoming familiar with them involves using it for recreation as well as work." <1992Mar6.042104.14586@wpi.WPI.EDU> 9. "In my opinion, users should participate in the development of policy. Also, unless you want to set up a formal "computer-infractions judical committee", you should should tie into regular university judicial procedures." <1992Mar7.195213.17699@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Notes 10-11 are about configuring your email reader to filter out messages from certain individuals. 10. A technique for filtering using elm is explained. <1992Mar5.164036.26921@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> 11. Another techinque for filtering, using HM, is explained. <1992Mar6.021936.5715@m.cs.uiuc.edu> - Adam] In this issue: Jurgen Botz 58 >Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland Brad Templeton 46 > Mitchell Wyle 156 > John Stanley 38 > Guy Genilloud 52 > Sean Casey 30 >Why I hate IRC John Schultz 30 >Telnet Censorship Lawrence Foard 55 > Carl M. Kadie 172 >Why I hate IRC Brygg Ullmer 36 >Is there a way I can block-out certain e-mail? Mike Schwager 24 > 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 Mar 2 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) Subject: Article 1--Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland Message-ID: <1992Mar2.025634.13544@mtholyoke.edu> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 02:56:34 GMT In article <1992Feb29.005416.19540@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Temple ton) writes: >Please people, while I do not approve of what SWITCH is planning, it is >not censorship and they are not censors. What they are doing is dumb and >capricious, but if you've ever seen actual censorship, then you wouldn't >demean the word by using it to refer to a private entitiy's refusal to >transmit material they don't like. Sorry Brad, I have to strongly disagree. I don't see how the censoring agent has to be a government (I assume that's what you by not ``private'') for the act of withholding information which is deemed ``objectionable'' by some arbitrary standards to be called censorship. Would you not call it censorship if a University you attended quietly kept certain books off the shelves? In many countries private Universities may have the right to do that, but makes it no more ethical. SWITCH may be a private organization, but as information provider to institutions of higher education they have a moral responsibility to _not_ use their position to manipulate which information the public is exposed to and which it isn't. Just because certain totalitarian governments (some of which are defunct now ;-) have made a mission out of completely rewriting history and mis- information their populace doesn't mean that nothing else deserves that label. What is being done by Switch is helping to create the kind of atmosphere in which reactionary thought thrives -- and _that_ can ultimately lead to ``official'' fascism. Yes, that may seem like an exaggeration, and yes, very similar things are happening in the USA and many other places. But I oppose them there, too, and cry ``foul'' when I see them because by calling these things by their proper names one can sometimes draw enough public attention to them that they get nipped in the bud _before_ they get chance to blossom into more unwieldy evils. Be it done by national authorities or private organizations, the act of whitholding information in a capricious manner and according to arbitrary and unpopular standards of ``objectionability'' IS CENSORSHIP. There don't have to be brown-shirts or death squads enforcing the policy and making sure that the information doesn't flow >from other sources to call it censorship. In many cases the same effect is accomplished bureaucratic big-headedness and deliberate misinformation about the facts. For examples SWITCH's claim that all the ``banned'' newsgroups are ``against Swiss law,'' even though it can't possibly be true, might be enough to convince the administrators of SWITCH's member institutions that they had better not allow secondary feeds which contain those groups. Smacks of deliberate mis- information to me, and even if it _were_ pure ignorance, that wouldn't be a very good excuse. Call it censorship... no, SCREAM ``censorship,'' and maybe the heat will get turned up enough under the SWITCH administrator's butts that they'll realize that modern western society does not take lightly to some bureacrats's deciding what is and what is not appropriate for them to read. -- Jurgen Botz | Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu Academic Systems Consultant | Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet Mount Holyoke College | Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime) South Hadley, MA, USA | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629 ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) Subject: Article 2--Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1992 08:29:31 GMT Message-ID: <1992Mar02.082931.21643@clarinet.com> In article <1992Mar2.025634.13544@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Bo tz) writes: >Sorry Brad, I have to strongly disagree. I don't see how the censoring >agent has to be a government (I assume that's what you by not ``private'') >Would you not call >it censorship if a University you attended quietly kept certain books off >the shelves? No, it isn't censorship, but it's very close, since Universities are very much like communities, and their administrations perform governmental functions. (If the schools are not indeed government funded.) However, the main reason it is close is that it is almost impossible under existing academic rules for ordinary students to just pick up and switch Universities without tremendous cost. And the reason for this is that censorship (in the sense of the word we're using here) is the use of force/violence to control the flow of information. (Or, more commonly, the threat of violence, which is the use of violence.) This is why only governments can do it. For others to do it is illegal. (Though if Vinnie and Guido were to visit me and say they would break my legs if I post this message, I would call it censorship.) There is real censorship in the world, even in the free countries of the world. Books are banned. Broadcasting licences are threatened with termination. Art galleries are closed down. Record store owners and recording stars have charges filed against them. BBSs and computers are confiscated. THIS is censorship and this is evil. What SWITCH is planning is bad, but it is insignificant, puny, nothing, when compared to censorship. >Call it censorship... no, SCREAM ``censorship,'' and maybe the heat will >get turned up enough under the SWITCH administrator's butts that No, you'll make everybody think you're over-reacting, and that you don't realize that freedom of the press rightly belongs to those who own the press. The right to publish what we want is important, but the right not to be told by others what you *must* publish or transmit is of equal importance. These two rights are the two sides of freedom of expression. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366 ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992 From: wyle@inf.ethz.ch (Mitchell Wyle) Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news Subject: Article 3--Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland Message-ID: <1992Mar2.135005.14877@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> Date: 2 Mar 92 13:50:05 GMT I haven't posted to this thread for a while... <1992Mar02.082931.21643@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes: >What SWITCH is planning is bad, but >it is insignificant, puny, nothing, when compared to censorship. There is no plan; SWITCH cut off all the groups quite some time ago. One moment the groups were there, and the next minute they were gone. Some people call such policy administrative fiat. Others think that Fiat is an Italian car. Earlier in this discussion (when it was still local to Switzerland), I was arguing Brad's point that SWITCH's action is not censorship. I quoted from Chip Salzenberg's intro article, posted every month to news.announce.newusers with the title ``Subject: What is Usenet?'' ``Usenet is not a right. ``Some people misunderstand their local right of "freedom of speech" to mean that they have a legal right to use others' computers to say what they wish in whatever way they wish, and the owners of said computers have no right to stop them. ``Those people are wrong. Freedom of speech also means freedom not to speak. If I choose not to use my computer to aid your speech, that is my right. Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. ``Usenet is not a public utility. ``Some Usenet sites are publicly funded or subsidized. Most of them, by plain count, are not. There is no government monopoly on Usenet, and little or no government control. ``Usenet is not an academic network. ``It is no surprise that many Usenet sites are universities, research labs or other academic institutions. Usenet originated with a link between two universities, and the exchange of ideas and information is what such institutions are all about. But the passage of years has changed Usenet's character. Today, by plain count, most Usenet sites are commercial entities. Later in the section entitled ``THE CAMEL's NOSE'' Chip writes: ``Property rights being what they are, there is no higher authority on Usenet than the people who own the machines on which Usenet traffic is carried. If the owner of the machine you use says, "We will not carry alt.sex on this machine," and you are not happy with that order, you have no Usenet recourse. What can we outsiders do, after all? ``That doesn't mean you are without options. Depending on the nature of your site, you may have some internal political recourse. Or you might find external pressure helpful. Or, with a minimal investment, you can get a feed of your own from somewhere else. Computers capable of taking Usenet feeds are down in the $500 range now, and UNIX-capable boxes are going for under $2000, and there are at least two UNIX lookalikes in the $100 price range. ``No matter what, though, appealing to "Usenet" won't help. Even if those who read such an appeal are sympathetic to your cause, they will almost certainly have even less influence at your site than you do. ``By the same token, if you don't like what some user at another site is doing, only the administrator and owner of that site have any authority to do anything about it. Persuade them that the user in question is a problem for them, and they might do something -- if they feel like it, that is. ``If the user in question is the administrator or owner of the site from which she posts, forget it; you can't win. If you can, arrange for your newsreading software to ignore articles from her; and chalk one up to experience.'' SWITCH owns and runs SWITCH machines. They can carry what they want. If the owner of your machine wants to get the banned groups, he can either go through SWITCH (convince them to feed your machine) or buy a feed from chuug. Such feeds are not expensive. Apparantly the people at the Swiss federal institute of technology in Laussanne (and in other places downstream of SWITCH) are going to Hawaii and other international sites to nntp the banned groups. Perhaps SWITCH will block port 119 in retaliation. Or, maybe SWITCH banned the groups in order to INCREASE network traffic (if 2,000 individuals nntp directly to Hawaii and Ohio instead of reading news locally on their machines...) Conspiracy theories don't seem likely in this case. Another fact Brad and other late-comers to this discussion might want to consider is that SWITCH blocked port 25 out of Switzerland for quite some time. SMTP is not a politically acceptable protocol and very buggy x.400 software needed testing. You can't imagine how terrible e-mail service was at that time or how many thousands of sys-admin hours were invested in that fiasco. Eventually, SWITCH backed down and allowed port 25 packets to flow. I personally would not be surprized to see smtp turned off again (on a whim). In addition to banning some usenet newsgroups, SWITCH is also blocking packets to the local eunet chapter (chuug). We have to route most packets from Zurich to Geneva and back to Zurich. Others go as far as Amsterdam, and, yes, still others go to the USA and come back (hee hee). SWITCH is blocking nntp, telnet and ftp to local sites connected to eunet. % ping chsun.chuug.ch chsun.chuug.ch is alive [ ping works ] % finger poole@chsun.chuug.ch [chsun.chuug.ch] Login name: poole In real life: Simon Poole Directory: /users/poole Shell: /bin/csh On since Feb 20 10:38:30 on ttyp0 from magnolia 2 days 19 hours Idle Time Mail last read Mon Mar 2 14:29:20 1992 No Plan. [ port 79 is open ] % telnet chsun.chuug.ch Trying 146.228.10.15 ... telnet: connect: Host is unreachable [ port 23 is blocked ] % ftp chsun.chuug.ch ftp: connect: Host is unreachable [ ports 20 and 21 seem closed ] % telnet chsun.chuug.ch stmp Connected to chsun.chuug.ch. Escape character is '^]'. 220 chsun.chuug.ch Sendmail 5.65c8/1.34 ready at Mon, 2 Mar 1992 14:36:11 +0100 [ Hmmmm, port 25 does not seem to be blocked at the moment. ] % telnet chsun.chuug.ch nntp Trying 146.228.10.15 ... telnet: connect: Host is unreachable [ ...but port 119 is :-) I wonder why?] ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Mar 3 00:00:00 1992 From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news Subject: Article 4--Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland Message-ID: <1992Mar3.003102.27987@talon.ucs.orst.edu> Date: 3 Mar 92 00:31:02 GMT In article <1992Mar2.182036.24919@den.mmc.com> hull@den.mmc.com (Jeff Hull) wri tes: >Censorship is preventing people from seeing something. ... > >Please, people, remember that words start as a tool for communicating >ideas but they become tools with which we reason. When we misuse >words, we make communication more difficult and wind up making >reasoning more difficult or even impossible. Then stop misusing the word censorship. Censorship is the act of an official to prohibit things. It is NOT the act of a private group who decides not to provide something. It is NOT the act of a newspaper when they decide not to print a letter. It is NOT the act of a government when they refuse to pay for the generation or production of something. When a University chooses not to put a certain book on the shelves of the local library, they have not censored that book. You are quite free to call the publisher and buy it yourself or go to another library. You will not be arrested for posession of that book just because the University hasn't bought a copy of it. It is NOT censorship. When the NEA decides not to fund a certain work of art, it is not censorship. It does not prohibit the artist from garnering private support, and does not prohibit him from displaying his work when it is finished. And when a USENET feed decides that it will not carry certain newsgroups, you are free to get your own feed from somewhere else. It isn't convenient, it isn't as cheap, maybe, but nobody said that USENET had to be convenient and cheap. And it certainly isn't censorship. ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Mar 4 00:00:00 1992 From: genillou@litsun.epfl.ch (Guy Genilloud) Newsgroups: ch.general,ch.network,epfl.general,news.admin,eunet.news Subject: Article 5--Re: Censorship and bigotry come up strong in Switzerland Message-ID: <1992Mar3.184031@litsun.epfl.ch> Date: 3 Mar 92 17:40:31 GMT I have to apologize to all of you who don't understand French. I made a mistake using xrn and I sent a message to the world that I intended to send to epfl.general only. Basically, in my preceding message, I was saying that Brad Templeton was (probably) right about censorship: a private company can refuse to pass information without that being called censorship. But SWITCH is not any private company. SWITCH will do whatever the governmental organisations ask it to do. Moreover, SWITCH made a proposal to pass any newsgroup requested by a University, as long as the University takes "responsibility" for it. The problem is now with Universities. So now, the question in Switzerland is: Can the government (or a governmental organisation) decide on an arbitrary basis to cut some perfectly legal newsgroups and let others pass freely? As a citizen, I would answer NO, on the ground that this could allow the government to filter out information it does not like and to promote information it likes. After all, a governement can not give subsidies to some Newspapers (directly or indirectly) and refuse those subsidies to other Newspapers (although of course no Newspaper has a right to receive subsidies). I am not legal person, so I may be wrong. The law may be unclear or different on this point. In that case, I think it should be changed (Swiss citizens can c hange the constitution if they want to). I would appreciate if someone could provide authoritative information regarding these matters for both Switzerland and United States. Guy Genilloud ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - DI - LIT (Laboratoire d'informatique technique) EPFL (Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne) CH-1015 Lausanne-Ecublens SWITZERLAND internet: genilloud@litsun.epfl.ch X.400: C=CH; A=ARCOM; P=SWITCH; O=EPFL; OU=LITSUN; S=GENILLOUD tel = (+41 21) 693 46 57 fax = (+41 21) 693 46 60 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) Subject: Article 6--Re: Why I hate IRC Message-ID: <1992Mar1.230835.9357@ms.uky.edu> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 04:08:35 GMT an288@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Hittinger) writes: [regarding shutting down controversial services] |I wouldn't feel guilty about doing these things because they can get together |and send a petition to your bosses. If they believe so strongly that it is |their right than they certainly can and should fight for it. If they will |not take the appropriate political steps then they are not really serious. Why not ask students why they don't get together and send a petition? I can tell you why; because most of them are convinced it won't make any difference. These kids come out of high school and still have authority stamped all over their behinds. Most of the college people I know don't even conceive of trying to change the system until their last year, and then they're too busy trying to graduate to get involved. I don't think lack of involvement implies a lack of seriousness. Yes, the users have to become responsible with the use of the resources and get involved in policy-making. But the administrators should help in this process by asking for input, opening policy meetings, and by acting less arbitrarily upon the users they are trying to serve. Sean ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Mar 2 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: C491153@UMCVMB.missouri.edu (John Schultz) Subject: Article 7--Re: Telnet Censorship Message-ID: <199203022336.AA12510@eff.org> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 23:33:19 GMT mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: >bd671@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher P. Harr) writes: >> Recently here at the Universtiy of Cincinnati, my home University >>we have had system administrators kill accounts of people who connected to >>port numbers whether it be IRC, MUD's MUSHES, MUSES etc. There are also people >>who lost their accounts for telnetting to certain foriegn hosts, even though >>they had permission to telnet there. >Good for them! Its about time students realize that the computer systemis >for Academics and not for their personal leisure time. Buy an Atari 260 if >you want leisure material. Hold on a minute here. I have an account I telnet to, but it's not for leisure use only. I have a guest account on the FSF machines, (and I'm very appreciative of the fact) so that I can get a little Unix experienc while I'm in college. My school only has Unix on a few machines and you have to be in the right classes (mainly CS - which I'm not) to have access to. I'm very happy that MIT has seen fit to give out guest accounts of this type. Now, students have no reason to whine about IRC and MUD access, but I think if you have an account on another system then you should be able to access it. John Schultz (caffeine abuser) ! ABC killed Laura Palmer c491153@umcvmb.bitnet ! Macintosh-free and proud of it! c491153@umcvmb.missouri.edu ! Subscriber to the hacker ethic ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Mar 6 00:00:00 1992 From: entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) Newsgroups: alt.censorship Subject: Article 8--Re: Telnet Censorship. Message-ID: <1992Mar6.042104.14586@wpi.WPI.EDU> Date: 6 Mar 92 04:21:04 GMT In article <1992Mar4.161917.3977@ac.dal.ca> finneyrc@ac.dal.ca writes: >The problem with games on academics computers is that there is usually NEVER >enough computers/terminals/workstation to meet the needs of all students to >allow one for each. If you can't even handle your academic users its time to add some more systems. I have trouble believing that your computer labs are full 24 hours a day, if they are I'm glad I don't go there :-) >Here at my university, GAME playing is strickly >NOT ALLOWED because of the above reason. How do you define a game? Does rn count? Does IRC count? Do muds count? I use IRC, rn and muds both for recreation and as a source of information, if you need to know something quickly IRC is the fastest way to find someone who knows. There are also significant advantages to knowing people outside of the local area in your field, the net provides a resource infinitly better than the library since you don't have to wait 2 years for information to appear. Being aware of Linux not only helps me personally, but will also save money for the project I'm working on since we can put some equipment to more productive use rather than having to purchase additional workstations. The amount my "game" playing costs WPI doesn't approach the amount it is saving them... >If anyone is found playing games >then all computer access is revoked (or so they say..). If I was asked to hire a programmer I would much rather hire someone who was familiar with the resources available on the net, becoming familiar with them involves using it for recreation as well as work. >If anyone wishes >to play games then I suggest they save up their pennies (I know that this is >hard) and buy a personal computer for home use (or get back into the board >games). Most students can't afford the $350/month for the leased line and UUNET connection... >I don't really approve of the rules but I do see the fairness in >preventing non-academic use on non-academic machines. I assume this is a typo? -- Disclaimer: Opinions are based on logic rather than biblical "fact". ------ This is a mutated signature virus, if you don't put it in your .sig \ / file you may lose your job, your dog may be run over, and you may die. \ / If you repent and add the .sig you may win the lottery and get laid. \/ ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Mar 7 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 9--Re: Why I hate IRC Message-ID: <1992Mar7.195213.17699@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 19:52:13 GMT lindahl@arrisun3.uta.edu (Charlie Lindahl) writes: [...] >So, "fascist" arguments aside, I believe that we must first have >published policies on usage before we can bash IRC abusers (or other >network users). If the network is still abused, then the users >cannot claim ignorance of the rules, and can be properly disciplined >(net access cut off) if necessary. [...] How long will access be cut off? Will the student or faculty user be able to ask for an informal hearing? a formal hearing? Will the discipline be imposed before a hearing establishes that an offense actually took place. Who decides when discipline is warrented? (i.e. who is authorized by your university to discipline student and faculty users?) Can users appeal discipline decisions? Will they be informed of this right? Will users participate in the development and application of the policy? In my opinion, users should participate in the development of policy. Also, unless you want to set up a formal "computer-infractions judical committee", you should should tie into regular university judicial procedures. I'm enclosing a FAQ on policy making. It includes a list of references to on-line material. - Carl =============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/policy =============== q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy? a: The first thing to do is to get a copy of your university's Student Code. It often protects student and staff freedom of expression, privacy, and due process rights. It is not just a piece of paper; it is part of the legal contract between student and university. Any new policy must be consistent with this policy. You may also find the unofficial, draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) useful. Also the CAF Archive contains the policies of many schools, some with critiques. Finally, you may wish to look at the CAF Law archive. Speech restrictions at public universities have been struck down consistently by recent federal courts. Also, the courts require due process before serious punishments can be applied to students. - Carl Kadie ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= caf-statement ================= This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due process, privacy, and user participation. Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line. ================= policies/README ================= Computer Policy and Critiques Archive [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]] This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools and networks. The collection also includes critiques of some of the policies. The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/policies". For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send other-comp-policies where is a list of the files that you want. File README is a detailed description of the items in the directory. For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains additional policies (but not critiques). ================= widener/README ================= This directory is a mirror of ftp.cs.widener.edu:pub/cud/schools/*. It is a collection of the computer polices of many schools. For a description of the file see file "widener/Index". Also see directory "policies". ================= law/README ================= CAF Law Archive [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]] This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic freedom. It includes both case law and legislation. The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/law". For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send caf-law where is a list of the files that you want. File README is a detailed description of the items in the directory. For more information or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). ================= law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ================= The full text of UWM POST v. U. of Wisconsin. This recent district court ruling goes into detail about the difference between protected offensive expression and illegal harassment. It even mentions email. It concludes: "The founding fathers of this nation produced a remarkable document in the Constitution but it was ratified only with the promise of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is central to our concept of freedom. The God-given "unalienable rights" that the infant nation rallied to in the Declaration of Independence can be preserved only if their application is rigorously analyzed. The problems of bigotry and discrimination sought to be addressed here are real and truly corrosive of the educational environment. But freedom of speech is almost absolute in our land and the only restriction the fighting words doctrine can abide is that based on the fear of violent reaction. Content-based prohibitions such as that in the UW Rule, however well intended, simply cannot survive the screening which our Constitution demands." ================= law/goss-v-lopez.fischer ================= Comments from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer, et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. It reports that the Supreme Court says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter is trivial or there is an emergency. ================= ================= To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s): send acad-freedom caf-statement send other-comp-policies README send widener-collected-comp-policies README send caf-law README send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin send caf-law goss-v-lopez.fischer The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) as file(s): pub/academic/caf-statement pub/academic/policies/README pub/academic/widener/README pub/academic/law/README pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin pub/academic/law/goss-v-lopez.fischer -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Mar 5 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: uiuc.cs.problems From: ullmer@suna3.cs.uiuc.edu (Brygg Ullmer) Subject: Article 10--Re: Is there a way I can block-out certain e-mail? Message-ID: <1992Mar5.164036.26921@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 16:40:36 GMT In <1992Mar3.013144.3462@m.cs.uiuc.edu> soufi@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Khaled S. Soufi) w rites: >I was wondering if anyone out there knows of any simple (?!) way to >block-out certain people (addresses) from sending e-mail to me! I >guess I can write a little utility that can search my mail file and >delete all messages that came from undesirable addresses but is there >anything better than that? Thanks in advance for any *wise* >suggestion. Yes... you can use the filter program, if elm has been installed on your system. If you haven't run elm before, run it once so that it can create the appropriate directories in your account. Then, you have filter invoked by the reception of new mail by putting "| /usr/local/bin/filter" (with the quotes) in your .forward file (the directory may be different from system to system; type "which filter" to get the appropriate directory). Finally, you set up a filter-rules file in your .elm directory, which might contain the following: if (from contains "unwanted-person-name") then save unwanted.message #alternatively, replace "save unwanted..." with "delete" if (always) then leave Be sure to check your filter-rules out for proper working order by running "filter -n < sample.msg" on both messages which should be deleted and messages which should be saved (including the header); filter will tell you what it would do with the message if run with the current filter-rules. Check the filter man page for more information. Brygg Ullmer ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Mar 5 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: uiuc.cs.problems From: schwager@cs.uiuc.edu (Mike Schwager) Subject: Article 11--Re: Is there a way I can block-out certain e-mail? Message-ID: <1992Mar6.021936.5715@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 02:19:36 GMT In article <1992Mar3.013144.3462@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, soufi@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Khaled S. Soufi) writes: |> I was wondering if anyone out there knows of any simple (?!) way to |> block-out certain people (addresses) from sending e-mail to me! I |> guess I can write a little utility that can search my mail file and |> delete all messages that came from undesirable addresses but is there |> anything better than that? Thanks in advance for any *wise* |> suggestion. +------------------------------------+--------------------------+ I suggest using MH. There are manuals in the library. Basically, you can crea te a .forward file that looks like this: "| /local/lib/mh/slocal -user schwager" and then you can have a mail delivery file that looks like this: >from nastyperson qpipe ?: "/bin/cat > /dev/null 2>&1" addr schwager qpipe ?: "/local/lib/mh/rcvstore +Sysadm" Automagic! Many more configuration options are available. -Mike ------------------------------ End of Computers and Academic Freedom News (Digest) ************************************