Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.20 (Digest) Approved: kadie@eff.org Computers and Academic Freedom News Vol. 02, No. 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.20 [Week ending May 3, 1992 ========================== KEY ================================ The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion. =============================================================== Notes 1-2 are about the University of Nebraska at Lincoln's decision to remove the alt.* newsgroups. 1. [_The Daily Nebraskan_] "Pornography was a factor in the UNL Computing Resource Center's decision to stop supplying and entire hierarchy of USENET news groups to UNL computers, the CRC director said Thursday." <9205040334.AA04565@cse.unl.edu> 2. [Student at UNL] "[T]he real reason that the alts were removed was not due to resources. Rather, that issue has served as a justification for the decision. ... [T]he computer responsible for taking care of news has been running at well under capacity (41% when we checked)." <9204281832.AA00992@jwendnelnc.cr.usgs.GOV> Note 3 is about fighting words, the "right" not to listen, and the "right" not to be offended. 3. The Supreme Court says that there is no right not to be offended except when privacy is 'invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view ... would effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.' <1992Apr27.143505.9602@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Notes 4-6 are critiques of computer policies at Virginia Tech and Princeton. 4. "The [Virginia Tech] policy shows good user participation and due process. Privacy could be improved by detailing the procedure by which searches are authorized. Freedom of expression could be improved by removing vague speech restrictions." <1992Apr27.214917.13402@eff.org> 5. Enclosed are excerpts from Princeton's "Guidelines for the use of Campus and Network Computing Resources". <199204292110.AA23705@eff.org> 6. Princeton bans computer speech that would be protected by the Constitution if it were a public university. The good news, from my point of view, is that it explicitly treats computer speech like traditional speech. <1992Apr29.213206.24214@eff.org> Notes 7-8 are about freedom of expression in traditional media. Such cases create formal and informal precedents that might be applied to computer media cases. 7. The yearbook for the University of Southwestern Louisiana includes a photo of a bare-breasted woman. University administrators say that although they don't like the photo, they lack authority to censor it. <1992Apr27.164301.27154@m.cs.uiuc.edu> 8. The Harvard Law Review parody violated "[o]ne of the exigencies of decency and civility [:] _de mortuis nil nisi bonum_, '[Speak] nothing but good about the dead.' "Still, un-Ivy behavior is normally not grounds for all Hell breaking loose and the roof falling in on one, even at Harvard." <18573@smoke.brl.mil> Notes 9-10 are about computer administration. 9. In reply to an article that said that it's OK to log the destination of telnets and email just as it's OK for the phone company to keep a record of calls: In some places, it is considered a violation of privacy for the phone company to release phone records even to the police. <1992Apr28.112552.23369@nntp.hut.fi> 10. "I have a problem with outlawing cracking programs: ... Would it be illegal to possess a paper on access security that contained the source code for a cracking program? Where do they draw the line between intellectual discourse and intent to break into someones account?" <1992Apr30.164835.1816@opac.osl.or.gov> - Carl & Adam] In this issue: David Burchell 54 DN article David Burchell 53 Alternate ways of managing resources at UNL Carl M. Kadie 70 >"Hate Speech" distinguished from "Panic-Inducing Speech" Carl M. Kadie 201 >Sacrificial Lamb: An Acce<>age Statement for your review Carl M. Kadie 34 Excerpts from Princeton's<>lines ... Computing Resources" Carl M. Kadie 13 > Carl M. Kadie 28 "Nude photo in yearbook stirs campus debate" M Rosenblatt 69 >UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty Jyrki Kuoppala 47 Surveillance of phone calling records brian@opac.osl 32 > 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 Apr 27 00:00:00 1992 From: burchell@cse.unl.edu (David Burchell) Message-Id: <9205040334.AA04565@cse.unl.edu> Subject: Article 1--DN article To: djburche@jwendnelnc Date: Sun, 3 May 92 22:34:49 CDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Status: RO The following article appeared on page six of _The Daily Nebraskan_, the student newspaper of the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, on Friday, May 1, 1992. Official says messages contained pornography by Mike Lewis Staff Reporter Pornography was a factor in the UNL Computing Resource Center's decision to stop supplying and entire hierarchy of USENET news groups to UNL computers, the CRC director said Thursday. Doug Gale said during an Academic Senate Computational Services and Facilities Committee meeting that the material in some of the alternative, or alt, groups was so bad, not even the adult bookstores would carry it. Some of the groups contained detailed information on how to torture and mutilate people, Gale said, and neither CRC nor the computational committee wanted to supply that information. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln gets the USENET news service through Internet, a worldwide computer network. If UNL had continued to supply the alt groups, Gale said, it would have risked losing access to Internet. UNL is one of 13 universities that have access to NSFNET, a computer service provided by the National Science Foundation, Gale said. The NSFNET backbone service, which connects to Internet, is funded by the federal government. If UNL had continued to supply the alt groups, and someone had complained to the federal government, UNL would have been required to prove that the groups met the criteria of the NSFNET backbone service's acceptable use policy, Gale said. UNL must have then provided proof immediately, or the Internet service would have been turned off, he said. By removing the alt groups now, Gale said, UNL forestalled such a confrontation with the federal government. Other universities that have had such confrontations "have decided supporting pornography is not worth losing their Internet access," Gale said. Dave Burchell, a junior computer science major and the newly appointed student representative to the computational committee, said UNL was obligated as a public institution to promote freedom of expression and to refrain from censoring ideas. "Gale has produced no evidence that the alt group removal was forced upon UNL," said Burchell, a member of the Nebraska University Students for Electronic Freedom. Paul Kenyon, a graduate student in computer science and NUSEF member, said neither the National Science Foundation nor the federal government had contacted UNL about the alt groups. -- burchell@cse.unl.edu | Dave Burchell ianr056@unlvm.bitnet | Review your options. djburche@jwendnelnc.cr.usgs.GOV | Amiga. ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: djburche@jwendnelnc.cr.usgs.GOV (David J. Burchell) Subject: Article 2--Alternate ways of managing resources at UNL Message-ID: <9204281832.AA00992@jwendnelnc.cr.usgs.GOV> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 18:32:00 GMT Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell mentioned better management of resources at UNL as a solution to the alt group problem. Raul, that is a great idea! I wish you were at UNL computer administrator. But the real reason that the alts were removed was not due to resources. Rather, that issue has served as a justification for the decision. First, the computer responsible for taking care of news has been running at well under capacity (41% when we checked). Second, the alt.* groups as well as everything else on news is still being fed to UNL's computers. It is stored breifly in a temp directory and then "dies" without having the alt.*s spooled. Third, CRC (our Computing Resouce Center) sees _this_ resource issue: They don't have the manpower to monitor all the alt. groups. Let that sink in a sec. Dave Spanel said on April 16 that the alts were unmoderated and unregulated, and that CRC did not have time to approve of the material, specificly the new groups, that the alts are always generating. I asked him why not just let the alts alone, would that not solve the resource problem? I asked him why CRC was _interested_ in reviewing the alt material. If I remember right, at that point Dave said he was not in a position to continue and we had better hear from his boss, Doug Gale, for CRC's offical position. You see, it seems CRC realizes they cannot censor all of the alts, they don't have the manpower (resources) to excise the undesireable parts. So they nixed the whole thing. But in answer to Raul's question; we ARE suggesting, of course, that alts be carried and everything be expired sooner. One more point: The CRC has maintained that nothing has been censored; the material is still available via anonymous ftp. -- Dave Burchell | Do who you like. burchell@cse.unl.edu | If you don't do who you like, ianr056@unlvm.bitnet | you won't like who you do. djburche@dnelnc.cr.usgs.gov | - Rex A. Turnbull ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.rights.human,alt.activism.d,alt.censorship,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 3--Re: "Hate Speech" distinguished from "Panic-Inducing Speech" Message-ID: <1992Apr27.143505.9602@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 14:35:05 GMT greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes: [...] >I believe that this description of "fighting words" is not quite accurate. >In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), Justice Murphy wrote for the SC: > >"...insulting or 'fighting' words--those which their very utterance inflict >injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." [...] I believe the current definition is 1) the language must be delivered one-to-one, and 2) must be such as to evoke an immediate breach of peace (as opposed to simply offending the listener). _Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire_ is (thankfully) out of date. According to _The First Amendment Book_ by Robert J. Wagman, 1991, p. 106: "In 1940 Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, was distributing literature on the streets of Rochester, New Hampshire, when he created quite a stir by loudly telling everyone he encountered that organized religions are 'a racket' and by specifically condemning several major ones by name in great detail. He was arrested an eventually convicted under a state law that made it an offense to speak 'any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any person who is lawfully in any street or other public place'. When the case reached the Supreme Court in 1942 (_Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_), the justices unanimously upheld the conviction and rejected Chaplinsky's claim that his words and actions were protected by the First Amendment...." According to _American Constitutional Law_ by Ralph A. Rossum and G. Alan Tarr, 1983, p. 379: "The Court has since [_Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_] defined 'fighting words' narrowly. It is not enough that speech be offensive, or invite dispute, or provoke hostility among listeners: only fact-to-face person insults raise no First Amendment issues. Yet the difficulty of designing a statute confined to such insults has lead the Court to overturn convicts on overbreadth or vagueness grounds even when the speech at issue clearly constituted 'fighting words'" In _Cohn v. California_, 1971 the Supreme Court restated the description of fighting words as "those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent action. [...] Finally, in arguments before this Court much has been made of the claim that Cohen's distasteful mode of expression was thrust upon unwilling or unsuspecting viewer, and that the State might therefore legitimately act as it did in order to protect the sensitive from otherwise unavoidable exposure to appellant's crude form of protest ... While this Court has recognized that government may properly act in many situations to prohibit intrusion into the privacy of the home of unwelcome views and ideas which cannot be totally banned from the public dialog ... we have at the same time consistently stressed that 'we are often "captives" outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech.' ... The ability of government, consistent with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon the showing that substantial privacy interest are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections." ... - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 4--Re: Sacrificial Lamb: An Acceptable Usage Statement for your review Message-ID: <1992Apr27.214917.13402@eff.org> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 21:49:17 GMT Summary: The policy shows good user participation and due process. Privacy could be improved by detailing the procedure by which searches are authorized. Freedom of expression could be improved by removing vague speech restrictions. marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes: >Well, it seems that that's publishing acceptable use policies is in >vogue these days, so I offer the following statement that signed by >account holders on our systems here at VA Tech. I think this is a great trend. It is very much in keeping with the spirit of a university and it seems to result in better policies. [...] > Appropriate Use of Information Systems > at Virginia Tech [...] >It demonstrates re- >spect for intellectual property, ownership of data, system security >mechanisms, and individuals' rights to privacy and to freedom from in- >timidation, harassment, and unwarranted annoyance. The phrase "intimidation, harassment, and unwarranted annoyance" is vague (perhaps unconstitutionally so) and redundant, unless you are quoting from a general Tech policy, I suggest the simpler and more precise "harassment". >In making appropriate use of resources you must: >o use only legal versions of copyrighted software in compliance with > vendor license requirements. As someone else has pointed out, copyright and licences are two different things. >In making appropriate use of resources you must NOT: > >o use another person's userid, password, files, system or data > without permission. So it is OK to use another person's userid and password with that person's permission? I don't think that is what you mean to say. >o engage in any activity that might be harmful to systems or to any > information stored thereon, such as creating or propagating viruses, > disrupting services, or damaging files. I think the phrase "might be harmful" is too weak. How about "causes harm, is intended to be harmful, or is likely to be harmful ..." >o use University systems for partisan political purposes, such as us- > ing electronic mail to circulate advertising for political candi- > dates. Speech should only be restricted if so required by University regulation (or law). If this restriction is based on a University regulation or law, you should reference the regulation. [...] >o use mail or messaging services to harass, intimidate, or otherwise > annoy another person, for example, by broadcasting unsolicited mes- > sages or sending unwanted mail. Based on court cases like _UWM Post v. U. of Wisconsin_ (which mentioned email), I believe this speech restriction is illegal because it is too vague and because it illegally restricts First Amendment rights. I suggest: o use mail or messaging services to harass, for example, by, sending mail after being told that it is unwanted." >o use the University's systems for personal gain, for example, by > selling access to your userid or by performing work for profit in a > manner not authorized by the University. The phrase "personal gain" is vague. It could be a prohibition against learning. Tech's general policies probably already have a rule about commercial use of Tech property. I suggest finding that policy and then just copying it. >ENFORCEMENT >The University considers any violation of appropriate use principles or >guidelines to be a serious offense and reserves the right to copy and >examine any files or information resident on University systems >allegedly related to inappropriate use. But what are the procedures for authorizing such a violation of user privacy? What is Tech's general privacy policy? Most state schools will not search assigned office space or dorm space without some higher-level authorization (with exceptions for emergencies, maintenance, etc). Remember, you are constrained by the Constitution from making "unreasonable searches and seizures". Although, no lawsuit has (as far as I know) yet established exactly what this means in the context of academic computer systems at state schools, it is unlikely to mean any sys op can authorize a search at any time. > Violators are subject to disci- >plinary action as prescribed in the honor codes and the student and em- >ployee handbooks. This is good. You have found a very simple way to respect the due process rights of your users. This is much better than policies (e.g. ACS at Ohio State University) that authorizes the computer center to suspend students from the computer without any hearing, appeal, etc.. - 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/gates-v-brewer ================= An excerpt from a newspaper article about email harassment. A judge agreed that Bill Gates of Mircosoft had been the victim of harassment. ================= law/constitution.us ================= The Constitution of the United States ================= policies/acs.ohio-state.edu ================= Policy on Abuse of Computers and Networks for The Office of Academic Computing at The Ohio State University (Critiqued) ================= faq/policy ================= q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy? ================= 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) (be sure to include the space before the file name): send acad-freedom/law uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin send acad-freedom/law gates-v-brewer send acad-freedom/law constitution.us send acad-freedom/policies acs.ohio-state.edu send acad-freedom/faq policy 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/gates-v-brewer pub/academic/law/constitution.us pub/academic/policies/acs.ohio-state.edu pub/academic/faq/policy pub/academic/caf -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 5--Excerpts from Princeton's "Guidelines ... Computing Resources" Message-ID: <199204292110.AA23705@eff.org> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 13:10:30 GMT [Excerpts from "Guidelines for the use of Campus and Network Computing Resources] Those who avail themselves of the campus and network computing resources are required to behave in their use of the technology in a manner consistent with the University's code of conduct. As stated in Princeton University Rights, Rules, Responsibilities: "Respect for the rights, privileges, and sensibilities of each other is essential in preserving the spirit of community at Princeton. Actions which make the atmosphere intimidating, threatening, or hostile to individuals are therefore regarded as serious offenses. Abusive or harassing behavior, verbal or physical, which demeans, intimidates, threatens, or injures another because of his or her personal characteristics or beliefs is subject to University disciplinary sanctions...." ========================== 9. Messages, sentiments, and declarations sent as electronic mail or sent as electronic postings must meet the same standards for distribution or display as if they were tangible documents or instruments. You are free to publish your opinions, but they must be clearly and accurately identified as coming from you, or, if you are acting as the authorized agent of a group recognized by the University, as coming from the group you are authorized to represent. Attempts to alter the "From" line or other attribution of origin in electronic mail, messages, or postings, will be considered transgressions of University rules. [...] -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 29 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 6--Re: Excerpts from Princeton's "Guidelines ... Computing Resources" Message-ID: <1992Apr29.213206.24214@eff.org> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 21:32:06 GMT So the bad news (from my point of view) is that Princeton bans speech that is protected by the Constitution at state universities. The good news is that they explicitly treat computer speech like traditional speech. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 29 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Article 7--"Nude photo in yearbook stirs campus debate" Message-ID: <1992Apr27.164301.27154@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 16:43:01 GMT According to an article in clari.news.sex: > LAFAYETTE, La. (UPI) -- The University of Southwestern Louisiana's >just-out yearbook featuring a photograph of a bare-breasted woman in bed >with a man has drawn attention as well as criticism of the annual's >``Love, Sex and Dating'' section. It was an original photo, so no copyright problems. Against Publication: The year book business manager. He thinks some student may ask for refunds. The Vice President of Student Affairs. He thinks it could hurt freedom of the press on the campus. But he says that he is not the campus censor: ``The only way I could have stopped it would have been to go to court. And I don't think any court would have stopped it.'' Not Obscene: The university's Communications Committeee chairman Local newspaper editor Student Press Law Center in Washington D.C. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 27 00:00:00 1992 From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) Newsgroups: misc.legal Subject: Article 8--Re: UPI story: Parody splits Harvard Law faculty Message-ID: <18573@smoke.brl.mil> Date: 28 Apr 92 15:39:18 GMT In article <1992Apr26.012819.4201@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes: >Could somebody please post a brief summary of the parody, itself, and any >additional information that would be pertinent to recognizing how it was so >awful? [J. S. Greenfield] I second that. I'd like to see what the fuss is all about. >So far, all I know is that the parody involved a column written by a >woman who had been slain. But I have no idea what makes this so awful. >(That is, writing a parody of something written by a slain individual >does not strike me as obviously awful, in and of itself. There must be >something more to the specifics of this matter.) [J. S. Greenfield] There is. Mary Joe Frug, the New England law school professor who was slain last year, was a feminist. The article she had published in the Harvard Law Review was a feminist article. According the the AP story that I read, the title of the parody made fun of feminism, so it is reasonable to assume that the parody itself did likewise. A girl student was quoted as not being surprised that such a parody was published, given the "sexism" in the atmosphere at Harvard Law School. And as if parodying feminism were not awful enough, the parody insinuated (with a footnote: "What's a girl got to do to get published in the Harvard Law Review?") that the only reason the Harvard Law Review published Prof. Frug's original article was that she was married to a Harvard Law professor. One of the exigencies of decency and civility is, _de mortuis nil nisi bonum_, "[Speak] nothing but good about the dead." The students involved disregarded this injunction. Decency and civility are at the heart of what my .sig calls, "IVY." That means that this parody was un-Ivy: unworthy of students *anywhere* in the Ivy League, let alone Harvard University, the Iviest of the Ivy, founded a bare sixteen years after the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock: "Thy shades are more soothing, thy sunlight more dear, Than descend on less privileged earth. For the good and the great, . . ." Four out of the nine Justices on today's Supreme Court? ". . . in their beautiful prime, Through thy precincts have musingly trod, As they girded their spirits and deepened the streams That make glad the fair City of G-d." Still, un-Ivy behavior is normally not grounds for all Hell breaking loose and the roof falling in on one, even at Harvard. When Adolfo Calero tried to speak there a few years ago, a student named Josh charged the rostrum, jumped over the speaker's table, and assaulted Mr. Calero, after which University officials hustled Mr. Calero out of the room and would not allow him to continue his speech. That's pretty un-Ivy, and violent to boot, but it didn't upset the faculty as much as this parody has. This un-Ivy behavior was different. Just like Wayne Dick's "Bestiality Awareness Day" posters at "the other place" a few years ago, this parody attacked a sacred cow. -- Matt Rosenblatt (matt@amsaa.brl.mil) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TRUTH JUSTICE FREEDOM YIDDISHKEIT IVY THE AMERICAN WAY ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.privacy From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) Subject: Article 9--Surveillance of phone calling records Message-ID: <1992Apr28.112552.23369@nntp.hut.fi> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 11:25:52 GMT A repost from alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, plus a not of my own attached at the end: >From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) >Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Logging outgoing telnet sessions >Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 11:03:43 IST >From: Hank Nussbacher >Message-ID: <92106.110343HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> >Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy >Subject: Re: Logging outgoing telnet sessions >I don't believe that is any of your business. Where someone telnets to, >who they send mail to, etc., should not be logged. Your plan sounds >an awful lot like "Big Brother" to me. The phone company records every phone call you make. No one looks at it until either you feel the bill is wrong and request a detailed bill or the police feel there is a need to look at who you have been calling (assuming you are a drug dealer or blackmailer). You may feel that the phone company is invading your privacy, but fortunately the justice system as well as society does not. The same is true with recording outgoing Telnet sessions. No one could care less where you are telneting to, and the logs are usally so large that *no* sysadmin reads them. They are there for cases of hacking. Hank Nussbacher Bar-Ilan University Israel --- In Finland it's not legal for the police to get access to the phone company records, though it's being suggested to be made a power grant to the police right now. The police _have_ been getting records from bank cash dispensers, for suspected crimes unconnected with bank crimes - my opinion from this is that it's a violation of privacy and there probably is a law against it in Finland (haven't done closer research). In USA, there's been at least one case publizized with something like a whole town's phone records searched for one suspected crime. //Jyrki ------------------------------ From caf-talk Caf Apr 28 00:00:00 1992 Path: opac.osl.or.gov!brian From: brian@opac.osl.or.gov Newsgroups: academic.freedom.talk Subject: Article 10--Re: Message-ID: <1992Apr30.164835.1816@opac.osl.or.gov> Date: 30 Apr 92 16:48:35 PST References: <9204301320.AA01916@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>, <1992Apr30.105440.1@acad3.alaska.edu> Organization: Oregon State Library, Salem OR News-Moderator: Approval required for posting to academic.freedom.talk Lines: 29 In article <1992Apr30.105440.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, writes: > It's not exactly encouraged, but there are few states where carrying picks > is illegal.... As with cracker programs, those found in possession are > likely to receive very close scrutiny, possibly for quite some time, but > there should be nothing wrong with owning or carrying the tools per se. > It could even be argued that using the tools under certain circumstances > is quite legal; just for your own education, trying to pick the lock on > your front door (or running crack against your own account's password). > An even finer line, which I have heard argued: user claims they were running > a cracker program on the password file just to collect those accounts with > poorly chosen passwords, so he could let the administrators know there was > a big problem.... > Where the issue becomes very black and white is once someone signs onto an > account they've cracked---those you can discipline/abuse/expel/arrest > (your preference). > jo I have a problem with outlawing cracking programs: Would they make it illegal to discuss methods of cracking? Would it be illegal to possess a paper on access security that contained the source code for a cracking program? Where do they draw the line between intellectual discourse and intent to break into someones account? -- ----- Brian McBee ----- (503)378-4276 ----- brian@opac.osl.or.gov ----- ----- Oregon State Library, State Library Building, Salem, OR 97310 ----- Above opinions are mine only. You can have them if you like. ------------------------------ End of Computers and Academic Freedom News (Digest) ************************************