Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: "AcIS Computer Usage Policy" from Columbia University Message-ID: <1993Apr21.181539.9429@eff.org> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 18:15:39 GMT This is a critique of Columbia University's "AcIS Computer Usage Policy". Its privacy protection is excellent. Some of its prohibitions are vague. Its due process procedure is good except that seems to allow punishment before final action. It is silent on free expression. It does not say if it was created with the particpation of the university community. [...] > Violations of AcIS policy can lead to the suspension of computer >account(s) pending investigation of circumstances. [...] The policy could be improved by saying that suspensions will not routinely proceed a determination of guilt, but that computer access might suspended "for reasons [...] relating to the safety and well-being of students, faculty, or university property" as determined by, for example, the head of AcIS. [Quote is from student.freedoms.aaup]. >Serious violations of AcIS policy will be referred directly to the >appropriate academic or outside authorities. This is good. It means that "computer" discipline is handled like other campus discipline matters. [...] >6. No AcIS system may be used for unethical, illegal or criminal purposes. Does any CU policy define "ethical"? If so, it should be references. If not, the word should be removed because it is too vague. >10. Electronic mail on all AcIS systems is as private as we can make it. > Attempts to read another person's electronic mail or other protected > files will be treated with the utmost seriousness. The system > administrators will not read mail or non-world-readable files unless > absolutely necessary in the course of their duties, and will treat > the contents of those files as private information at all times. > Undeliverable mail is directed to the system administrators in the > form of *headers only* for purposes of assuring reliable e-mail > service. Great! >13. Frivolous, disruptive, or inconsiderate conduct in the computer labs or > terminal areas is not permitted The word "disruptive" is good, but "frivolous" and "inconsiderate" are too vague. - Carl ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= academic/student.freedoms.aaup ================= * Student Freedoms (AAUP) Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main U.S. statement on student academic freedom. ================= policies/eff.org ================= * Org -- Electronic Frontier Foundation Here are the rules for *.eff.org, the computers of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a private, not-for-profit organization. The policy seems to be the model for parts of the Columbia University AcIS policy. ================= ================= If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command gopher gopher.eff.org These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.77.172.4), and get file(s): pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup pub/academic/policies/eff.org To get the file(s) 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/academic student.freedoms.aaup send acad-freedom/policies eff.org -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) Subject: Re: "AcIS Computer Usage Policy" from Columbia University Message-ID: <1993Apr21.193903.29032@news.columbia.edu> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 19:39:03 GMT In article <1993Apr21.181539.9429@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >This is a critique of Columbia University's "AcIS Computer Usage >Policy". Its privacy protection is excellent. Some of its prohibitions [...] >It does not say if it was created with the particpation of the >university community. As far as I know, it wasn't. But don't we pay administrators to administrate? Since there hasn't been any complaints about the policies (that I have heard of), there isn't any test of how responsive they would be in the event of a conflict. > >[...] >> Violations of AcIS policy can lead to the suspension of computer >>account(s) pending investigation of circumstances. >[...] > >The policy could be improved by saying that suspensions will not >routinely proceed a determination of guilt, but that computer access >might suspended "for reasons [...] relating to the safety and >well-being of students, faculty, or university property" as determined >by, for example, the head of AcIS. [Quote is from student.freedoms.aaup]. While this would be nice, the fact is that it isn't the policy. The policy is that they can suspend accounts before a determination of wrongdoing. Or any doing really. I take the 'pending investigation' to mean that they will restore your account promptly even if there may be cause for disciplinary action. I think this guarantee of restoration of your account is more important than the suspension aspect. > >>Serious violations of AcIS policy will be referred directly to the >>appropriate academic or outside authorities. > >This is good. It means that "computer" discipline is handled like >other campus discipline matters. > >[...] >>6. No AcIS system may be used for unethical, illegal or criminal purposes. > >Does any CU policy define "ethical"? If so, it should be references. >If not, the word should be removed because it is too vague. I don't see it as a problem if if not defined. 'Ethical' has a meaning even if we can't quite nail it down. Enough of a meaning ti base a policy on. Subject to intepretation when some event occurs (like every other rule). Another problem is that ethics is enforced differently in different parts of the university. It is sort-of defined in the Research Policy Handbook. In the section "Ethics and Misconduct", part III (Research) we read: "Misconduct in research is herein defined as gross lack of integrity in conducting basic or clinical investigations involving dishonesty, knowing misrepresentation of data, and/or violations of accepted standards." (In this section 'misconduct' and 'lack of ethics' are used interchangeably. > >>10. Electronic mail on all AcIS systems is as private as we can make it. >> Attempts to read another person's electronic mail or other protected >> files will be treated with the utmost seriousness. The system >> administrators will not read mail or non-world-readable files unless >> absolutely necessary in the course of their duties, and will treat >> the contents of those files as private information at all times. >> Undeliverable mail is directed to the system administrators in the >> form of *headers only* for purposes of assuring reliable e-mail >> service. > >Great! > >>13. Frivolous, disruptive, or inconsiderate conduct in the computer labs or >> terminal areas is not permitted > >The word "disruptive" is good, but "frivolous" and "inconsiderate" are >too vague. > I don't see why they are too vague. Disruptive is vague as well. None of the words are exactly defined. Lets take the example of someone fooling around with all the terminals contrast and brightness knobs. That could hardly be called disruptive, but would be both frivilous and inconsiderate, and so illegal. If you limit the list of prohibited activities to 'disruptive', then you force the adminstrators to have a very broad definitions for it. So broad that almost anything could be 'disruptive'. We don't want this. We want the rules to be stated as precisely as possible. DanZ -- This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions, narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do not necessarily represent the views of any particular person. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Xref: cs.uiuc.edu alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:6317 comp.admin.policy:2950 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy Path: cs.uiuc.edu!vela.acs.oakland.edu!destroyer!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!kadie From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Re: "AcIS Computer Usage Policy" from Columbia University Message-ID: <1993Apr22.012035.17648@eff.org> Originator: kadie@eff.org Sender: usenet@eff.org (NNTP News Poster) Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation References: <1993Apr21.145319.3821@eff.org> <1993Apr21.181539.9429@eff.org> <1993Apr21.193903.29032@news.columbia.edu> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 01:20:35 GMT Lines: 134 kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: ck>It does not say if it was created with the particpation of the ck>university community. dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes: dz>As far as I know, it wasn't. But don't we pay administrators to dz>administrate? Yes. But policy making and system/policy administering are not identical. At a university, at least ideally, everyone has a voice in policy making. "The responsibility to secure and to respect general conditions conductive to the freedom to learn is shared by all members of the academic community. Each college and university has a duty to develop policies and procedures which provide and safeguard this freedom. Such policies and procedures should be developed at each institution within the framework of general standards and with the broadest possible participation of the members of the academic community." [Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students] dz>[...] The policy is that they can suspend accounts before a dz>determination of wrongdoing. Or any doing really. I take the dz>'pending investigation' to mean that they will restore your account dz>promptly even if there may be cause for disciplinary action. I think dz>this guarantee of restoration of your account is more important than dz>the suspension aspect. I agree that restoration is more important, but think "no punishment pending final action" is also important. "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." [Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students] ck>Does any CU policy define "ethical"? If so, it should be references. ck>If not, the word should be removed because it is too vague. dz> I don't see it as a problem if if not defined. 'Ethical' has a dz>meaning even if we can't quite nail it down. Enough of a meaning ti dz>base a policy on. Subject to intepretation when some event occurs dz>(like every other rule). Let be revise my comments. Instead of saying that "ethical" is too vague, I should have said that it is too broad. That is, I believe it covers actions that should not be subject to university sanction. For example, I believe it unethical to cheat on one's spouse. I also believe it is unethical to ask that someone be kicked off the computer just because you don't like what they say. I don't, however, believe that arranging a date or making a suppression request should be a violation of university rules. Just as the quoted section of the Research Policy Handbook specifies which types of unethical conduct are forbidden, this policy should so specify. ck>The word "disruptive" is good, but "frivolous" and "inconsiderate" are ck>too vague. dz> I don't see why they are too vague. Disruptive is vague as well. None dz>of the words are exactly defined. (Again, I should have said "too broad" instead of "vague".) What I like about the word "disruptive" is that it has legal meaning, for example, it is used in _Tinker v. Des Moines_. dz> Lets take the example of someone fooling around with all the terminals dz>contrast and brightness knobs. That could hardly be called disruptive, but dz>would be both frivilous and inconsiderate, and so illegal. If you limit dz>the list of prohibited activities to 'disruptive', then you force the dz>adminstrators to have a very broad definitions for it. So broad that almost dz>anything could be 'disruptive'. Isn't this covered by some other, more general, university rule? What rule would be applied to students who went into a classroom and put all the desks up-side-down? "Frivolous" is just so broad. Reading Netnews is sometimes (often?) frivolous. Reading rec.humor.funny is almost always frivolous. Sending email is sometimes frivolous. - Carl ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) ================= academic/student.freedoms.aaup ================= * Student Freedoms (AAUP) Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main U.S. statement on student academic freedom. ================= law/tinker_v_des_moines ================= * Expression -- On Campus -- Tinker v. Des Moines Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ (3rd edition) by Janet R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. It says that school cannot prohibit students from handing literature such as underground newspapers on school property. ================= ================= If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command gopher gopher.eff.org These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org (192.77.172.4), and get file(s): pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup pub/academic/law/tinker_v_des_moines To get the file(s) 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/academic student.freedoms.aaup send acad-freedom/law tinker_v_des_moines -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) Subject: Re: "AcIS Computer Usage Policy" from Columbia University Message-ID: <1993Apr22.164847.3521@news.columbia.edu> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 16:48:47 GMT In article <1993Apr22.012035.17648@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > >ck>It does not say if it was created with the particpation of the >ck>university community. > >dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes: > >dz>As far as I know, it wasn't. But don't we pay administrators to >dz>administrate? > >Yes. But policy making and system/policy administering are not >identical. At a university, at least ideally, everyone has >a voice in policy making. > Sure. Except that administrators are expected to make up rules for thier particular area. It's an open question as to whether they would be responsive to campus opinion. In almost every case, people don't want a voice in policy making. Mostly it is due to lack of interest. I don't care what hours the art labs are open. In the same way, art students don't care how you get access to the animal care facilities. Adding "We are open to input from the university community" would be just senseless extra wordage. > > > >ck>Does any CU policy define "ethical"? If so, it should be references. >ck>If not, the word should be removed because it is too vague. > >dz> I don't see it as a problem if if not defined. 'Ethical' has a >dz>meaning even if we can't quite nail it down. Enough of a meaning ti >dz>base a policy on. Subject to intepretation when some event occurs >dz>(like every other rule). > >Let be revise my comments. Instead of saying that "ethical" is too >vague, I should have said that it is too broad. That is, I believe it >covers actions that should not be subject to university sanction. For >example, I believe it unethical to cheat on one's spouse. I also Although I wouldn't mind adding 'academic' to make it clear what sort of ethics we are talkig about, I think it is obvious the way it is stated. Although I have heard of one professor being asked to leave do to sexual impropriety. >believe it is unethical to ask that someone be kicked off the computer >just because you don't like what they say. I don't, however, believe >that arranging a date or making a suppression request should be a >violation of university rules. > >Just as the quoted section of the Research Policy Handbook specifies >which types of unethical conduct are forbidden, this policy should so >specify. Ahh, but what I didn't quote was that the ethics policy goes on for pages in flowery happy-academics-speak about freedom, truth and responsability. I really think you could be in violation of the university ethics rules for pretty much anything. So the AcIS rules are not out of line. I bet most university codes are equally expansive on ethics. > >ck>The word "disruptive" is good, but "frivolous" and "inconsiderate" are >ck>too vague. > >dz> I don't see why they are too vague. Disruptive is vague as well. None >dz>of the words are exactly defined. > >(Again, I should have said "too broad" instead of "vague".) >What I like about the word "disruptive" is that it has legal meaning, >for example, it is used in _Tinker v. Des Moines_. Fine. Except that I don't think that AcIS is referring to any legal definition. Given that games are specifically forbidden, I think 'disruptive, frivilous, inconsiderate' further emphasises that AcIS machines are for serious work. > >dz> Lets take the example of someone fooling around with all the terminals >dz>contrast and brightness knobs. That could hardly be called disruptive, but >dz>would be both frivilous and inconsiderate, and so illegal. If you limit >dz>the list of prohibited activities to 'disruptive', then you force the >dz>adminstrators to have a very broad definitions for it. So broad that almost >dz>anything could be 'disruptive'. > >Isn't this covered by some other, more general, university rule? What >rule would be applied to students who went into a classroom and put >all the desks up-side-down? > I don't know if there is one. But if there is a specific rule, it would be almost a mirror of the AcIS rule, I think. I think you would have to stretch the point to call turning desks disruptive. >"Frivolous" is just so broad. Reading Netnews is sometimes (often?) >frivolous. Reading rec.humor.funny is almost always frivolous. Sending >email is sometimes frivolous. > Of course every rule is open to interpretation. I can't speak for AcIS, but I suspect that they view usenet as an open communication medium. In this light it won't be frivilous even if it is not clearly of value to everyone. DanZ -- This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions, narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.