Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cis.general From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: Policy from Ohio State University's CIS Dept. Message-ID: <1993Apr26.204055.23811@eff.org> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 20:40:55 GMT This is a critique of Ohio State University's Computer and Information Sciences Department policies and guidelines. Summary: It lacks due process protection and is ambiguous on privacy. It allows some freedom of use (even games, at a low priority). It prohibits (illegally, in my opinion) "obscene language", "personal attacks", "sexual or racially insenstivi[ty]", and display of any bitmap that "any user ... finds ... inappropriate". The policy does not say if it was created with the participation of users (or university legal counsel). Details: >Severe and/or repeated violations can lead to anything from loss of >privileges on your account ... The policy could be improved by specifying the due process procedure. >to a charge of academic misconduct. Academic misconduct charges will be >handled by the department according to the University's standard >procedures. My understanding (based on the Brack case) is that "academic misconduct" at OSU means things like creating on a test. I believe that things like breaking a window and most computer violations are considered nonacademic and are handled by the Judiciary Committee. [...] >* The contents of each user's files are that user's personal property. >No one should read or copy another user's files without that user's >permission. If "one" includes sys admins, this is wonderful privacy protection. [...] >You may use your CIS account not only for CIS lab work, but for other >CIS course work, for any course work in general, and even for >recreation. However, since these facilities are provided by the CIS >department, users working on CIS course work have top priority. [...] This seems quite reasonable and quite in keeping with the academic spirit of independent investigation. [...] >If the clean-up process does not free up enough disk >space, the accounts of users who are severely over quota may be looked >at, in an attempt to locate files that are obviously not CIS-related. >Note that this in only done if a clean-up does not release enough disk >space for the file server to be usable. This seems to contradict the privacy protection promised earlier. I think it would be better just to move the largest files to tape without looking at their contents. [...] >* Obscene language and personal attacks are strictly prohibited. I believe this rule is an illegal infringement of constitutionally protected speech. 'In Papish v. University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667, 93 S.Ct. 1197, 35 L.Ed.2d 618 (1973), the Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of a university student expelled for distributing an underground newspaper sporting the headline "Motherfucker acquitted" on the grounds that "the mere dissemination of ideas--no matter how offensive to good taste--on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of conventions of decency." Id. at 670, 93 S.Ct. at 1199.' (from _Doe_, see refs). [...] >Complaints that a user has committed one of these offenses can lead to >removal of that user's mail and news privileges, other restrictions on >that user's account, and/or formal action by the department or >university including dismissal. [...] This suggests that a user's email and news privileges informally and/or before the complaint has been investigated. If so, it seems to be an illegal violation of student process rights (see refs). [...] >For example, if you have a background image on your machine that can >be considered sexually or racially insensitive or at worst, sexual or >racial harassment, you may be subject to discipline under both >University and CIS guidelines. While harassment can be prohibited, insensitivity is constitutionally protected. As U. of Wisconsin and U. of Michigan have found, it is illegal for a state university to prohibit or punish insensitivity. [see refs] [... >It may also be necessary to try to locate any trap >doors the perpetrators have added to the system, to make it easier for >them to get back in. Under these circumstances, the CIS staff will do >whatever is necessary to resolve the breach. When the President says the U.S. "will do whatever is necessary", he means that we will attack militarily, likely causing death. CIS would be wise to confine itself to "taking reasonable measures". [...] >Local users found to be violating or attempting to violate the security >of the systems may face academic misconduct charges, or other >appropriate legal action. [...] As mentioned above, "academic misconduct" charges are probably not the right charges. [...] >Any user who finds the display of a particular bitmap inappropriate may >notify the operations staff. The staff will notify the displayer to >remove the bitmap immediately and to refrain from further public >display. The bitmap will be removed from the CIS public directory if it >resides there. [...] "Someone finds your display inappropriate" is an inappropriate criteria for suppression. I'm sure the University has a procedure for handling harassing material while protecting non-harassing material. I'm reasonably confident that CIS staff are not part of that procedure. - Carl Kadie Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= policies/cis.ohio-state.edu ================= * Edu -- Ohio State U. -- Computer & Information Sci The computer policy for OSU's Computer and Information Science Department. ================= policies/old.cis.ohio-state.edu ================= * Edu -- Ohio State U. -- Computer & Information Sci -- old The old appropriate use, mail (and Netnews), disk, and printer policy for the computers labs of OSU's Computer and Information Science Department (Critiqued) ================= policies/old.cis.ohio-state.edu.critique ================= * Edu -- Ohio State U. -- Computer & Information Sci. -- Critique -- old Critique for the old appropriate use, mail (and Netnews), disk, and printer policy for the computers labs of OSU's Computer and Information Science Department Summary: 'The policies are better than most. The privacy policy is especially good. In my opinion, the weakest policy covers email and netnews [and due process]. It says that undergrads are prohibited from posting or emailing off campus. This rule is enforced very selectively. To quote an OSU sys admin: "it's just something that's usable as a weapon against the occasional real jerk." (I think such selective enforcement is despicable.)' ================= cases/brack@ohio-state.edu ================= The letters from Ohio State University to Steven Brack including his letter of dismissial. Also comments on the letters. ================= cases/brack@acs.ohio-state.edu ================= All the early notes from CAF-talk related to Steven Brack, Ohio State, and Academic Computer Services. ================= law/doe-v-u-of-michigan ================= * Expression -- Hate Speech -- 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. ================= law/uwm-post-v-u-of-wisconsin ================= * Expression -- Hate Speech -- 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/cohen-v-california.1 ================= * Expression -- Offensive -- Cohen v. California -- 1 Definition of "fighting words"; why no right not to be offended The definition of fighting words from _Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_ and then _Cohen v. California_. Also, says quotes the Supreme Court saying that there is no universal right to not hear offensive expression. ================= law/cohen-v-california.2 ================= * Expression -- Offensive -- Cohen v. California -- 2 Netnews article with reference _Cohen v. California_, "in which the court ruled that Cohen's jacket, which stated "Fuck the Draft" was a protected form of free speech, even though he wore it in a county courthouse." ================= law/cohen-v-california.3 ================= * Expression -- Offensive -- Cohen v. California -- 3 Here are excerpts from several Supreme Court decisions inclusing _Cohen v. Calfiornia_. They say that offensive public expression is protected if those offended can "effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes." ================= law/constraints.constitutional ================= * Constitution -- Public University -- Constraints Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D. Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the constitutional constraints on public universities including the requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, specific rules. ================= law/brandenberg-v-ohio ================= * Expression -- Advocating Lawbreaking -- Brandenberg v. Ohio In e-mail, a correspondent expressed the view that there was no right to speech that advocated violence. This response is based on U.S. law. It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill of Rights Briefing Paper #10: Freedom of Expression. The Supreme Court's standard is that speech may not be suppressed or punished unless it is intended to produce 'imminent lawless action' and it is 'likely to produce such action.' ================= law/goss-v-lopez3 ================= * Due Process -- When Required -- Goss v. Lopez Two articles providing excerpts from Goss v. Lopez (1975) and discussing its application to the suspension of computer accounts. ================= law/goss-v-lopez.fischer ================= * Due Process -- When Required -- 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. ================= law/goss-v-lopez.mnookin ================= * Due Process -- When Required -- Goss v. Lopez -- Mnookin Comments from _In the Interest of Children_, R. Mnookin (Ed.), Franklin E. Zimring and Rayman L. Solomon (Contrib. Authors). 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. ================= caf ================= * About the CAF mailing lists (and newsgroups) A description of 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? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,cis.general Subject: Re: Policy from Ohio State University's CIS Dept. Date: 26 Apr 1993 18:05:16 -0400 Message-ID: In article <1993Apr26.204055.23811@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >Summary: It lacks due process protection and is ambiguous on privacy. Most of what you seem to want is covered in general university regulations, and doesn't merit more than a footnote in department policies. As for privacy, the most likely explanation for ambiguity is that privacy *is* ambiguous. >It prohibits ... display of any bitmap that "any user ... finds ... >inappropriate". Note that that's *public* display of "inappropriate" bitmaps; I believe the specific justification is "creating an environment conducive to sexual harrassment". The details on what constitutes "inappropriate" aren't clearly spelled out, but this policy is still in the early stages; to date, no image has been removed from the public raster directory for content (or even for quality). >>Note that this in only done if a clean-up does not release enough disk >>space for the file server to be usable. >This seems to contradict the privacy protection promised earlier. I >think it would be better just to move the largest files to tape >without looking at their contents. Walk a few miles in our sandals, please. Large-scale system administration doesn't seem to be your area of greatest experience (which is about as nicely as I can put that opinion without choking on saccharine). When 200+ people are using the same disk, and it fills up in the middle of the day, writing a 50 megabyte file to tape takes far longer than determining that it's the result of an infinite loop and deleting it. I did that this morning; I don't think the user's privacy was in any way compromised, and I'm sure the other 200 people on that disk prefer my solution to yours. >When the President says the U.S. "will do whatever is necessary", he >means that we will attack militarily, likely causing death. CIS would >be wise to confine itself to "taking reasonable measures". Since we're not career politicians, I think we can safely use the former phrase without confusing people. If a future policy statement says "read my lips", I'll be sure to let you know. "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." -- Justice Louis O. Brandeis (Olmstead vs. United States) -- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)