Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.15 (Digest) Approved: kadie@eff.org Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 02, No. 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.15 [Week ending March 29, 1992 [Issues #12, #13, and #14 are still in production.] ========================== KEY ================================ The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. =============================================================== Notes 1-3 are about removal of the alt.* newsgroups by the Computer Resource Center at the University of Nebraska. 1. Lack of resources is a legitimate reason to remove (or not select) a set of newsgroups. Disk drives aren't the only cost in providing Netnews service. Other costs include staff and the computers themselves. <1992Mar24.91906.8818@ms.uky.edu> 2. "The issue is not really whether Nebraska doesn't have the resources to carry the alt.groups. The issue, instead, is whether they're using 'limited resources' as an excuse for not carrying newsgroups they regard as controversial." <1992Mar27.225144.29958@eff.org> 3. [A UNL alum:] "The reasons given for the decision are so transparent as to be internationally embarrassing to the University." "There may be newsgroups that you wish not to take. If that is the case, be honest about it." "If you are in need of additional resources, they should be requested [...]" <1992Mar26.214421.26447@sparky.imd.sterling.com> Notes 4-6 are about privacy in email and Netnews reading. 4. Here are the results of a poll of U. of Illinois sys admins about email privacy. Opinions varied. One thinks that only a judge should be able to authorized an email search. Another thinks that keyword searches are OK without such authorization. <1992Mar23.182015.18970@m.cs.uiuc.edu> 5. Here are the results of a similar poll of non-U. of Illinois sys admins. One respondent says that searches for technical reasons are not the same as searches to investigate wrong doing. One says that he or she was once asked to search a users files, but flatly refused. <1992Mar23.184747.13631@eff.org> 6. Sys admin have a legitimate need to look at users' .newsrc files (the files that tell what newsgroups user's read). This information helps sys admins configure the Netnews facilities. However, "readership information for specific users should be kept confidential." <1992Mar25.101311.8450@ms.uky.edu> Notes 7-9 are about the law and freedom of speech (and association). 7. At Auburn University in Alabama, the student government, the State Attorney General, and the State Legislature are trying to remove recognition of the Gay Lesbian Alliance, a student organization. <1992Mar24.191617.13162@eff.org> 8. A student at the University of Southern California asks for help in filing a 'hate speech' complaint against a fellow student. You have no grounds for filing. "State universities have no authority (i.e. it is illegal for them) to punish students for hate speech. The way to fight such bad speech is with good speech." [Editor's note: USC is not a state university.] <1992Mar25.205435.31172@m.cs.uiuc.edu> 9. [A professor who studies sexual harassment:] "It sounds generally right" that merely making offensive-to-some information available has never been found to create an illegal hostile environment. "The availability of all kinds of materials in libraries is completely protected....now, that's a TRUE First Amendment issue!" <1992Mar25.180208.4528@eff.org> Notes 10-11 are about specific network and university polices. 10. [Gordon Cook:] The National Science Foundation should drop its acceptable use policy because 1) Congress doesn't seem to want it 2) it would allow commercial enterprises to offer more and better services to research and education. <9203232058.AA00975@tmn.com> 11. "This is a critique/review of the U. of Delaware computer policy proposal." The policy is *very* polished. "I do have some concern about punishment before 'conviction'" and "[t]he policy could be improved by saying that nondisruptive, noncommercial "personal use" of the computer [is] permitted and encouraged subject to whatever limitations local sites may impose." [Editor's note: The policy draft is available via anonymous ftp from zebra.cns.udel.edu as file pub/udel.guidelines_draft. Or, for a possibly out of date version, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line: send other-comp-policies udel.edu ] <1992Mar26.220927.5131@eff.org> - Carl] In this issue: Wes Morgan 56 >news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal Mike Godwin 25 > Kent Landfield 71 An Open Letter to UNL CRC: Removal of alt.* Carl M. Kadie 106 >How do U. of I. sys admin<>bout email privacy for users? Carl M. Kadie 87 > Wes Morgan 74 >News Group Readership Monitoring Eric Hunt 57 GLB at Auburn University Carl M. Kadie 93 >DIE FAGS! Carl M. Kadie 55 >Network distribution of Pornographic material. Gordon Cook 91 The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes Carl M. Kadie 208 >[eff.mail.ethics-l] Statu<> Responsible Computing Policy 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 24 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Subject: Article 1--Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal Message-ID: <1992Mar24.91906.8818@ms.uky.edu> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 14:19:06 GMT entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes: >kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes: >>entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes: >>>It would cost the computer center less than $1000 to carry all newsgroups. >> >>How do you know this computer center can spare this $1000? > >Do 100 students read the alt groups? Charge each one $10 for it. Charge students for news? Yikes! My site doesn't charge for *anything*, and we don't plan to do so. If we charge for reading alt.*, should we charge for reading *any* news? How do we control access to it? Shall we set a group (the Unix group mechanism, that is) for all those who have paid their bill? With 2000 users, that's going to become a managerial nightmare rather quickly. >Actually I didn't realize alt was so small, 60 megs is alot less than >$1000, even for a drive costing $4/meg its still only $240. Charge the >students $2 to read the alt groups. Your solution addresses the cost of extra disk space. What about the original cost of the system? Many sites purchase a system for use as a news server; others dedicate an owned system to news. What about the cost of the maintenance contract? If you have a *real* news server (a SPARCStation can't serve 2000 people effectively, you know), the maintenance costs escalate rapidly. What about the salaries of those people who maintain/upgrade/administer the news server? Of course, you could turn the news server over to a group of unpaid students/users, IF the server was dedicated to news. If, as is usually the case, the news machine has uses other than news, this may not be a valid option. What about the cost of the phone line? Many sites pay their local Communi- cations Office a monthly fee for their network/phone lines. >The copyright problem maybe a legitimate concern although I don't know if >this is the responsibility of the college. I would assume the poster is >responsible for the copyright violation. If the SPA finds a bootleg copy of WordPerfect on my system, they don't care where I got it; I'm the one who will pay the penalty. -- morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu "I was going to rip your head off, but I'm past that now." ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Mar 27 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) Subject: Article 2--Re: news story on U. of Nebraska alt.* removal Message-ID: <1992Mar27.225144.29958@eff.org> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 22:51:44 GMT In article <1992Mar27.151728.22746@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes: > >Ah, but the cost (in terms of resources) is NOT constant! > >Let's quantify the set of newsgroups as N[]. Newsgroups and/or hierarchies >can be indicated as elements of N, e.g. N[comp.sys.sun] or N[rec.*]. I think you're missing the point here. The issue is not really whether Nebraska doesn't have the resources to carry the alt.groups. The issue, instead, is whether they're using "limited resources" as an excuse for not carrying newsgroups they regard as controversial. Is there any serious dispute about whether this is what, in fact, they are doing? --Mike -- Mike Godwin, |"Les vrais paradis sont les paradis mnemonic@eff.org | qu'on a perdus." (617) 864-0665 | EFF, Cambridge | --Marcel Proust ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Mar 26 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,unl.general From: kent@sparky.imd.sterling.com (Kent Landfield) Subject: Article 3--An Open Letter to UNL CRC: Removal of alt.* Message-ID: <1992Mar26.214421.26447@sparky.imd.sterling.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 21:44:21 GMT For those of you out there who know little about UNL, it is a *great* school in a super town with dedicated people. Please don't view all at UNL within the framework of this silly decision. Yes, Big Red is important to UNL and to the state, but as a pastime. The primary focus at UNL is education. Take it from someone who was involved as a student and an athlete at UNL (Swim team, not football). If there is someone at UNL who would like to redirect the following *anywhere* within the University of Nebraska system or the State Legislature, feel free. Does the Daily Nebraskan have email access ? ========================================================================== As someone who received their education from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, I am saddened to hear of the CRC decision to remove availability of the USENET alt newsgroup hierarchy from within the UNL system. The reasons given for the decision are so transparent as to be internationally embarrassing to the University. The grounds for the decision are perceived as very weak indeed... I urge the person or persons responsible for this mistake to reconsider. There may be newsgroups that you wish not to take. If that is the case, be honest about it. People can accept honesty. There may be legitimate reasons for not carrying certain newsgroups, but slashing the entire alt hierarchy is rather extreme and unnecessary. This issue does not place the University in a good light. This topic is currently being actively discussed in multiple internationally available USENET newsgroups. The issue will do more to keep excellent students from enrolling than keep unacceptable material off your systems. GIFs will be downloaded. Students are very resourceful individuals. If you are in need of additional resources, they should be requested and obtained. If the budget does not allow that, please feel free to call me directly and I will gladly help assist in lobbying the Unicameral for the needed resources. UNL has been contributing to the Internet as a whole by making Archie access available from archie.unl.edu. For that we thank you! If you can justify contributing to the general Internet community by making that system available to anyone, anywhere in the world for resource location, you should have little trouble justifying the availability of the alt newsgroups for your own researchers and students. If the University of Nebraska expects to continue to compete in advanced technology fields as the quality education institution it has been in the past, it will need to have the most basic of facilities available to its researchers and student population. The University should be taking a *full* USENET feed as there is valuable and necessary information contained in other hierarchies outside of the "Top Eight" that can be of immediate use to researchers. Those too would require disk space and cpu access but the trade off is worth the minimal expenses. The amount of News is growing at a rapid rate. Lets hope that the hierarchies comp, rec, soc, and talk are not the next to go in search of disk space. Planning for the future growth of USENET is hard but USENET has emerged as an essential core facility that any University must supply in order to adequately support of its mission. Kent Landfield Nebraska Resident Moderator USENET's comp.sources.misc newsgroup (402) 291-8300 ========================================================================== I should not have to do this but... This article reflects *my* personal opinions and mine alone. -Kent+ --- Kent Landfield INTERNET: kent@IMD.Sterling.COM Sterling Software, IMD UUCP: uunet!sparky!kent Phone: (402) 291-8300 FAX: (402) 291-4362 Please send comp.sources.misc-related mail to kent@uunet.uu.net. ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 4--Re: How do U. of I. sys admins feel about email privacy for users? Message-ID: <1992Mar23.182015.18970@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 18:20:15 GMT About a week ago, I posted a note to uiuc.general asking U. of Illinois sys admins how the feel about email privacy for users. I received three reponses. Here is a paraphrase the responses (items in double quotes are direct quotes). Responses are separated by a blank line. cmk> 1) The U. of I. requires authorization before an office or dorm room cmk> can be searched and before a university telephone can be tapped. Who cmk> should be authorized to authorize searches of user computer files and cmk> taps of email? (e.g. anyone, operators, sys admin, department head, cmk> dean, judical committee, judge) What is a 'search'? In the course of work I have seen user email. "As a matter of personal policy I try to avoid doing so." A judge. I have mixed feelings, we don't need more red tape. "Sometimes you have to use a grep on a certain userid or something in private areas in order to find misuse. I do not feel that anyone lower than a judge should be able to authorize more than a simple grep through. I feel that use of the command grep is much different than the use of the command 'more'." cmk> 1.1) Should it make any difference if the user is a professor rather cmk> than a student? No. No. No. cmk> 1.2) Are email searches comparable (in terms of authorization that cmk> should be requried) to office and dorm seaches and telephone taps? If cmk> not, what makes them different? Again 'search' needs to be defined. "To some extent I act as mail clerk under a system where everyone sends postcards." Yes, compariable. Having a sys admin reading all of a user's mail spool is comparable. But, just searching a user's mail spool for keywords (such as "NSA"), "is a different story, because you do not have such an analogue in dorm searches." [I think the responent is saying that keyword searches are OK because they are so narrow. - cmk] cmk> 2) If your system has an email privacy policy, who does that policy cmk> give search authority to? No explicit policy. No explicit policy. No explicit policy. cmk> 3) Have you ever been asked or ordered to search user email or files cmk> but felt uncomfortable with the order? No. No. No. cmk> 4) Some searches of email might be illegal or immoral. On the other cmk> hand, refusing a supervisor's order to search might be insubordinate. cmk> Do you think that written email policies that detail when a search cmk> request is valid offer you important protection. Potentially. Yes. "I think that written policies do offer some protection, but having a written policy makes you open for scrutiny when there are no problems, I guess." cmk> 5) The law relating to email privacy is unclear. Do you think that the cmk> University should wait until the law is settled (via lawsuits and cmk> court cases) before creating written email policy? [ambigious response - cmk] No, should not wait. I think we should wait. "Obviously, they [s]hould abide by current laws (ECPA, etc.), but I think that it is prudent to wait until laws are settled and in the meantime, be reasonable." ================= [Other comments:] "most of the questions seem leading and there are grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors." -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Mar 23 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 5--Re: How do U. of I. sys admins feel about email privacy for users? Message-ID: <1992Mar23.184747.13631@eff.org> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 18:47:47 GMT At the same time I posted to uiuc.general, I put a similar query to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and comp.admin.policy. I received two responses. Here is a paraphrase of the responses (items in double quotes are direct quotes). cmk> 1) Most universities require authorization before an office or dorm cmk> room can be search, or before a university telephone can be tapped. cmk> Who should be authorized to authorize searches of user computer files cmk> and taps of email? (e.g. anyone, operators, sys admin, department cmk> head, dean, judical committee, judge) Dean of students, someone similar for faculty, judges. The premise of the question is incorrect because universities can search dorms without authorization if they give 24 hour warning or if there is an emergency. "Offices are presumed to belong to the University including all the papers in locked cabinets." "Telephones are routinely checked for quality without any notice or warning before or after the check." "As the above illustrates, there is a big difference between checking for quality or emergencies and checking for other reasons. The individual at the front line should be presumed to have the authority to correct problems as they arise, especially in an emergency." "It is wrong for people in supervisory positions to order or authorize the search because then the search is not for fixing technical problems but for finding non-technical faults." cmk> 1.1) Should it make any difference if the user is a professor rather cmk> than a student? No. No. cmk> 1.2) Are email searches comparable (in terms of authorization that cmk> should be requried) to office and dorm seaches and telephone taps? If cmk> not, what makes them different? Yes. No. "They are much easier." "They leave no trace of the search." cmk> 2) If your system has an email policy, who does that policy give cmk> search authority to? No policy (yet). "No mention of any search authority in the email policy." cmk> 3) Have you ever been asked or ordered to search user email or files cmk> but felt uncomfortable with the order? "I was asked once, and I flatly refused; that was the end of the matter." No. cmk> 4) Some searches of email might be illegal or immoral. On the other cmk> hand, refusing a supervisor's order to search might be insubordinate. cmk> Do you think that written email policies that detail when a search cmk> request is valid offer you important protection. "I would draw a parallel between this situation and the military solution. Enlisted soldiers have the explicit right to disobey orders which they believe to be illegal" "No. Challenging an order and citing a policy is an easy way to loose a job. Supervisors dislike being quoted policy and will find some reason to get rid of you." cmk> 5) The law relating to email privacy is unclear. Do you think that cmk> universities should wait until the law is settled (via lawsuits and cmk> court cases) before creating written email policy? "No; I believe that we can initiate a policy before the law is ''settled''. We may have to modify that policy to meet the laws developed at a later date, but this is a common procedure." "YES. There is the large risk of writing policy that is illegal. Illegal policy will not protect anyone and may make persons implementing such policy guilty of conspiracy." -- 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 Mar 25 00:00:00 1992 From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) Newsgroups: alt.sources,alt.security,news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: Article 6--Re: News Group Readership Monitoring Message-ID: <1992Mar25.101311.8450@ms.uky.edu> Date: 25 Mar 92 15:13:11 GMT kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >mcmahan@fletcher.cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes: > >[...] >>It had never occurred to me that anyone would be snooping through my >>.newsrc looking at what I was reading! And the guy asking didn't think >>there was anything wrong with doing it, either, even after I pointed >>out changing a couple of lines could turn a general report of what is >>being read at your site to a line by line description of what everyone >>is reading. >[...] > >I that that computer sites (especially academic sites) should treat >this readership information the way that libraries treat readership >information, i.e. as confidential. I think we all agree that the information, when gathered, should be kept confidential. I think that Mr. McMahan is more concerned with the actual gathering of the information. I will attempt to address that point. When a site is running arbitron (or a similar script), they often use the derived statistics to configure their news feed. If, for example, a site discovers that only one person (of, say, 1000 users) is reading a particular newsgroup, they may decide to eliminate that newsgroup. Of course, if *no one* is reading a particular newsgroup, the deletion decision is that much easier. If news becomes a problem in disk space consumption (and it often does!), the "readership info" can help the news admin determine which groups are widely read; the less frequently read groups would be candidates for de- letion. If you prevent your news admin from reading your .newsrc (through pro- tection, renaming, compression, et cetera), you are effectively renoun- cing your right to "vote" in the newsgroup maintenance process. Pic- ture, if you will, the following scenario: Newsadmin: Well, arbitron reports that no one is reading alt.love.puppy, and it's getting somewhat large; since no one is reading it, I'll delete it. (2 or 3 days pass....) Users: Hey! alt.love.puppy was my favorite group, and it's gone! Newsadmin: Well, why didn't your readership show up in the stats? Users: Oh, we don't want you to know what we read, so we all renamed/compressed/encrypted our .newsrc! Newsadmin: (Immediate and near-total loss of sympathy) Most newsadmins try to serve their readers as much as possible. Your .newsrc (or its complement for ANU News/nn/trn/whatever) is your "voting list" for the newsgroups you like. Why give up your voice in the matter? I agree that readership information for specific users should be kept confidential. I'll be the first one to lambaste any newsadmin who starts generating or distributing "lists of alt.sex readers" (or the like). However, I maintain that there is a real need for scripts such as arbitron; they are an extremely valuable tool in news site/feed management. -- morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu "I was going to rip your head off, but I'm past that now." ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Mar 24 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.politics.correct,soc.motss,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 7--GLB at Auburn University Message-ID: <1992Mar24.191617.13162@eff.org> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 19:16:17 GMT [Reposted from reposted email by Eric Hunt (with his permission) - Carl] I've been following as much as I can of this controversy at Auburn from my home here in Birmingham. Here's how it stands so far, with histories, etc. The GLB applied for an official University charter to the SGA several months ago. The SGA denied the charter. One of the Vice-Presidents of the University OVERTURNED the SGA's denial of a charter, and the GLB now has an official charter from Auburn allowing them to meet in school buildings, etc. etc. This overturning was rumoured to have come about because the ACLU of Alabama indicated that if the GLB was not granted a charter, they would sue. Several days after the granting of the charter, 12,000 signatures were collected and presented to the TRUSTEES of teh college, who apparently have the FINAL say so over these things. The signatures called for the removal of the offical charter from the GLB. Meanwhile, the Alabama legislature, both House and Senate, passed resolutions denouncing the existence of the group, and calling on the Trustees to remove their charter. State Attorney General Jimmy Evans issued an advisory opinion stating that it was his office's opinion that Auburn University could not legally give the GLB funds, due to the sodomy laws of the State of Alabama. Finally, the trustees of the college are now asking that a COURT issue an official, binding opinion as to the legality of state funds going to the GLB. They will base their decision to recind the GLB's charter on this. I heard this on yesterday's news. But, an this is an important but, the GLB *STILL HAS AN OFFICIAL CHARTER AS A RECOGNIZED STUDENT ORGANIZATION FROM AUBURN UNIVERSITY* Finally, it's worth noting that both the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham have chartered GLB groups on campus. Why Auburn has been a holdout, who knows? (I do, it's got something to do with cow fields and such, but that's an inside joke against Auburn. (:) .. [extranneous stuff deleted not relevant to the GLB at AU] .. ---------------------------------------------------------------- -- Eric Hunt Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, AL bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net (preferred) eric.hunt@matrix.sbs.com -- 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 Mar 25 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.personals,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 8--Re: DIE FAGS! Message-ID: <1992Mar25.205435.31172@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 20:54:35 GMT madjdsad@aludra.usc.edu (Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi) writes: [...] >I should point out that this individual ("Avenging Angel") has been positing >hate mail throughout the net (he also has posted to soc.culture.iranian >stating his belief that all individuals from the Middle East should be dead). >Because of this, I am going to be pursuing a complaint against him at USC for >violating our principles of community. If there are any individuals here who >can provide any commentary of his postings, please forward them to me at >madjdsad@aludra.usc.edu; your assistance in this will be appreciated. [...] State universities have no authority (i.e. it is illegal for them) to punish students for hate speech. (They can, of course, punish people for breaking into other people's computer accounts.) The way to fight such bad speech is with good speech. A premise of our democracy is that good speech will out compete bad speech in a free marketplace of ideas. It is unnecessary and even dangerous to let the government decide which speech is "bad" and to suppress that speech. Part of the price we pay for being a (mostly) free and (mostly) sovereign people is that we will sometimes hear speech that offends us. I'm enclosing references to the two federal court decisions on state university speech codes. - Carl ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= 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/doe-v-u-of-michigan ================= This is Doe v. University of Michigan. In this widely referenced decision, the district judge down struck the University's rules against discriminatory harassment because the rules were found to be too broad and too vague. ================= caf ================= A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and networks be defended? ================= ================= To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the line(s): send caf-law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin send caf-law doe-v-u-of-michigan send acad-freedom caf The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) as file(s): pub/academic/law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin pub/academic/law/doe-v-u-of-michigan pub/academic/caf -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Mar 25 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 9--Re: Network distribution of Pornographic material. Message-ID: <1992Mar25.180208.4528@eff.org> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 18:02:08 GMT I asked Prof. Louise Fitzgerald of the U. of Illinois to look over my last posting on this. She is a professor of educational psychology and psychology who stuides the effects of sexual harassment. With her permission, here is her email response, followed by the note I sent to her. ====================================== >>From: Louise Fitzgerald >>Message-Id: <199203251736.AA18378@s.psych.uiuc.edu> >>Subject: Re: Playboy in the University library >>To: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) >>Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 11:36:55 CST It sounds generally right, but I think that students can indeed be punished for making offensive comments to someone privately, i.e., pursuing someone who wants you to leave them alone, saying sexually offensive stuff, and so forth......but you are correct that you can make pretty much whatever comments you want in a classroom context (as can professors) if they are related to the subject at hand.... The availability of all kinds of materials in libraries is completely protected....now, that's a TRUE First Ammendment issue! LFF ========================= >From kadie Wed Mar 25 12:00:37 1992 To: l-fitzgerald1@uiuc.edu Subject: Playboy in the University library This is part of a note I just wrote to a computer newsgroup. Does it sound right? ================= As far as I know, merely making offensive-to-some information available has never been found to create an illegal hostile environment. It it did, only students would be allowed to use the library (And professors would have to return all those books they keep checked out for years :-) ) The real difference seems to be what a person can be punished for saying. As a staff member, you can be punished for making some types of offensive comments in the context of your job to another employee (or student). If you make too many of them and your employer does nothing to stop you, then your employer might be liable for a "hostile environment". As a student at a state university, I can't be punished for making offensive comments. (Exception: at U. of California schools, fighting words are prohibited.) [I'm not sure this is quite right, I'll double check.] -- 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 Mar 23 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv From: cook@tmn.com (Gordon Cook) Subject: Article 10--The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes Message-ID: <9203232058.AA00975@tmn.com> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 01:58:05 GMT <> Gordon Cook 23-MAR-92 20:58 cook@tmn Although I haven't yet gotten to the point on my tape recording where the AUP was discussed directly with Steve Wolff. The sense I got from the hearings was certainly that the NSF should drop the AUP. As I said here before Steve replied that the NSF believed that it was statutorily required to have an AUP. He stated that if it were dropped the amount of backbone traffic would go up dramatically and implied that the government would be funding a free good for commercial networking where companies that desired no communication with the research and education community would be able to get on the internet and balance their checkbooks or send spreadsheets back and forth all day long. I think this reasoning is flawed -- as we have seen people say before on this list many companies with a presence here WOULD NOT use this network for proprietary enterprise networking for reasons of security and stability. Those companies that hop on the network and use it would do so presumably because they had REAL business to conduct with the R&E community. I have transcribed almost 45 minutes worth of questions from the hearing. I have heard nothing so far from what I have transcribed that suggests that either congressman Boucher or Packard would be upset if the AUP were dropped. We hear that the NSF is required to have it, but to the best of my knowledge no one has been able to cite, the statute, the executive order or the OMB ruling or anything else on which this requirement is based. I find this very perplexing. Steve has the general counsel at the NSF or anyone else been able to find anything "scriptual" yet? If they cannot do so, given the current environment, why not bow to the commercialization of the network and drop the AUP. Asking Congress to tell you to drop it is OK. But sheesh asking the congress to give you NREN took over 4 years. How long would this take before you got the statutory OK? Why not say we will drop the thing September 1 unless someone can come up with an overwhelmingly strong reason by then for our not doing so? Dropping it would eliminate the tilt that has been given to ANS, because ANS would no longer have exclusive commercial rights to the backbone. You could then get on to building the NREN instead of having to fight the ANS/CIX/MId-level wars. If ANS fells irreparably injured by this action let it say so and let it pack its bags and go home. Others I am sure would fill the gap. After all while the NSF fights the AUP wars, ESnet is preparing to install a *REAL* bleeding edge backbone, it would be nice to see you with an unhindered path to the same end. Here's one of the best exchanges from the hearings of March 12th. Mich cuts to the heart of things when he points out that the NSFnet may not be able to serve as BOTH the production and the R&D network for NREN. Congressman Packard: So you suggest that recompetition would be successful if it were done on a level playing field. What would have to be done to make it that way? Mitch Kapor: I could suggest a couple of options. One option would be to say that the network manager could not also play a commercial role. . . . . Another possibility is to move to the other end of the spectrum and do it in such a way that all commercial carriers would have equivalent access to whatever backbone were put in place. I won't tell you that I know how to do that today but I will tell you that it is worthwhile to discuss. ****What stands in the way of that today is really the acceptable use policy and that is why modifying it or dropping it in order to give all commercial providers equal access to these federally supported and subsidized regional networks would be another way of leveling the playing field.**** The distortion comes when you take one or for that matter two carriers and partially subsidize them and you give them commercial rights that nobody else has. . . . Let me mention if I may a third option which is to separate out the idea of a production backbone, that is the services which occupy 99% of the users on a day to day basis. Separate this network from investment in precompetitive ultra high speed broadband networks. My reading of NREN is that it needs to serve both purposes. To expand the reach and to develop a high end. . . . to expand the reach let there be subsidy to the institutions to purchase services on the open market. . . . . At the same time develop the high end . . . we support this but we don't want to see it confused with the day to day production network that serves millions of users today -- millions of whom are already in the commercial sphere. Sixty percent the institutions on the US internet are commercial entities. The rate of growth of commercial institutions far outstrips the rate of growth of educational institutions. -- 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 Mar 26 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 11--Re: [eff.mail.ethics-l] Status of UDel's Responsible Computing Policy Message-ID: <1992Mar26.220927.5131@eff.org> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 22:09:27 GMT This is a critique/review of the U. of Delaware computer policy proposal. I. Participation The proposed policy was created in the open. Users and other have been able to look at drafts of the policy and make comment. Drafts have also been presented at conferences and via electronic mailing lists. Before being finalized, the proposal will be presented to the faculty senate. The result is all this openness and participation is the most refined and detailed policy I have seen. II. Due process Due process is provided by processing alleged rule violations via regular university channels. I do have some concern about punishment before "conviction". The "Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students" says: "Pending action on the charges, the status of a student should not be altered, or his right to be present on the campus and to attend classes suspended, except for reasons relating to his physical or emotional safety and well being, or for reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students, faculty, or university property." In contrast, the U. of Delaware policy says: "A system administrator may find it necessary to suspend or restrict a user's computing privileges during the investigation of a problem. The system administrator should confer with his or her administrative officer or other person designated by that administrative officer before taking this step. A user may appeal such a suspension or restriction and petition for reinstatement of computing privileges through the University's judicial system, through the grievance procedures outlined in University collective bargaining agreements, or by petition to the Dean of Students." And: "If staff in the Department of Public Safety or system administrators have a preponderance of evidence that intentional or malicious misuse of computing resources has occurred, and if that evidence points to the computing activities or the computer files of an individual, they have the obligation to pursue any or all of the following steps to protect the user community: ... Suspend or restrict the alleged abuser's computing privileges during the investigation and judicial processing. A user may appeal such a suspension or restriction and petition for reinstatement of computing privileges through the University's judicial system, through the grievance procedures outlined in University collective bargaining agreements, or by petition to the Dean of Students." The two quotes from the proposed policy don't seem to agree on when a user should be suspended from the computer. The first quote doesn't provide guidance as to when a sys admin may find suspension "necessary". The second quote seems to authorize punishment for an offense before it has been established that an offense as occurred. I think the policy could be improved by reconciling these two quotes and by making it clear that suspension before "conviction" is only allowed when it is necessary to protect university property; it should not be used to punish. III. Privacy The policy acknowledges that a user, not the University, is the owner of his or her own data: "Data Owner: the individual or department that can authorize access to information, data, or software and that is responsible for the integrity and accuracy of that information, data, or software. Specifically, the data owner can be the author of the information, data, or software or can be the individual or department that has negotiated a license for the University's use of the information, data, or software." The policy says "Under certain unusual circumstances, a system administrator is authorized to access your computer files." And: "A system administrator must treat information about and information stored by the system's users as confidential." The circumstances when a inspection/search of user files is permitted is detailed later in the policy: "While investigating a suspected abuse of computing; a suspected hardware failure; a disruption of service; or a suspected bug in an application program, compiler, network, operating system, or system utility, a system administrator should ordinarily ask a user's permission before inspecting that user's files, diskettes, or tapes. The next two paragraphs outline exceptions to this rule. If, in the best judgment of the system administrator, the action of one user threatens other users or if a system or network for which the system administrator is responsible is in grave, imminent danger of crashing, sustaining damage to its hardware or software, or sustaining damage to user jobs, the system administrator should act quickly to protect the system and its users. In the event that he or she has had to inspect user files in the pursuit of this important responsibility, he or she must notify, as soon as possible, his or her own administrative officer or other individual designated by that administrative officer of his or her action and the reasons for taking that action. The administrative officer needs to be certain that one of the following are also notified: the user or users whose files were inspected; the user's supervisor, project director, administrative officer, or academic advisor. It is a departmental responsibility that this notification occur, not a personal responsibility of the system administrator. In cases in which the user is not available in a timely fashion, in which the user is suspected of malicious intent to damage a computer system, or in which notifying the user would impede a sensitive investigation of serious computer abuse, the system administrator may inspect the information in question so long as he notifies his or her own administrative officer or other individual designated by the administrative officer of his or her actions and the reasons for taking those actions. The administrative officer needs to be certain that the user's supervisor, project director, administrative officer, or academic advisor is notified of the situation. In the case of suspected malicious intent, the administrative officer may also need to refer the matter to the appropriate University judicial body or to the Department of Public Safety." And: "If staff in the Department of Public Safety or system administrators have a preponderance of evidence that intentional or malicious misuse of computing resources has occurred, and if that evidence points to the computing activities or the computer files of an individual, they have the obligation to pursue any or all of the following steps to protect the user community: [...] - Inspect the alleged abuser's files, diskettes, and/or tapes. System administrators must be certain that the trail of evidence leads to the user's computing activities or computing files before inspecting any user's files. (See "User Confidentiality and System Integrity" on page 6 of these Guidelines for more information.)" This is consistent with the Joint Statement, I wonder, however, how it compares to University policy for office space. Personally, I think a University should be required to get a search warrant before searching user email. III. Free expression The policy says: "Misuse of computing and information resources and privileges includes, but is not restricted to, the following: [...] - using the University's computing resources to harass or threaten other users" This is good. I assume that "harass and threaten" are defined and prohibited by other University policies. This policy could be improved by just referring to established University policy rather than creating a new and distinct "harass and threaten" on-the-computer policy. (If they are not defined elsewhere, then the policy is too vague.) IV. Tone of policy and policy on "personal use" The tone of the policy is that anything that is not acceptable is prohibited. This can be seen most clearly in rules such as "Misuse of computing and information resources and privileges includes, but is not restricted to, the following: [...] using computing facilities, computer accounts, or computer data for purposes other than those for which they were intended or authorized" And: "University computing facilities and accounts are to be used for the University-related activities for which they are assigned. University computing resources are not to be used for commercial purposes or non-University-related activities without written authorization from the University. In these cases, the University will require payment of appropriate fees. This policy applies equally to all University- owned or University-leased computers." The meaning of these prohibitions is unclear. Does this mean that I can't use email to ask a friend to meet me at the student union for lunch? Does it mean that as a computer science major I can't read "alt.fishing"? Does it mean that a English professor can't try to teach him or herself to program in "C" by writing programs on a University computer? Does it mean that recreational programs are prohibited? To the last question the policy offers a clue. It explicitly prohibits "encroaching on others' use of the University's computers (e.g., disrupting others' computer use by excessive game playing; ...)" Presumably then, some recreational use is permitted on some computers at some times. The policy could be improved by saying that nondisruptive, noncommercial "personal use" of the computer and permitted and encouraged subject to whatever limitations local sites may impose. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu= ------------------------------ End of Computers and Academic Freedom News (Digest) ************************************