Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) Subject: [U. of Chicago] SCIC Info Sheet Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 20:34:59 GMT [From "gopher opus.uchicago.edu 70" - Carl] Student Computing Issues Committee Fact Sheet What is the SCIC? The Student Computing Issues Committee exists to promote computing at the University of Chicago, to bring student computing concerns to the administration, and to advocate usersU rights and responsibilities. Who is the SCIC? The members of the 1993 committee are Cory Scott, chair Antoun Nabhan, secretary Andrew Hatchell Clay Heaton Anne Mooney Dennis Brennan We also have a handful of associate members, who come from different sectors of the university, who provide vital information and assistance to help the committee reach its goals. Where is the SCIC? It is easiest to reach the committee in cyberspace. Our Internet email address is sg-computing@midway.uchicago.edu. However, feel free to call Cory Scott at 702-2839, or drop a message in the Student Government office at the Reynolds Club. U.S. mail may be sent to Cory Scott at 5824 S Kimbark Ave #3108, Chicago, IL 60637. When and how was the SCIC created? The committee was formed by Student Government President Anne Mooney, under the advisement of Cory Scott. After a speech was given by Mr. Scott to the Student Government Assembly, they approved the formation of the committee. Antoun Nabhan, a Student Government Assembly member joined the committee at that time. Positions for committee members were made available soon after, drawing over 35 responses. Andrew Hatchell, Clay Heaton, and Dennis Brennan were selected to join the committee, and associate memberships were offered to the remaining candidates. We meet weekly on Tuesday evenings to discuss concerns that have been brought before us and to work on long-term and short-term projects. -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Path: cs.uiuc.edu!kadie From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) Subject: [U. of Chicago] SCIC Mission & Purpose Message-ID: Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 20:35:34 GMT Lines: 37 Mission & Purpose Statement for the SCIC The SCIC exists to: ---To defend traditional civil liberties in computing environments at the University of Chicago. ---To defend the freedom to experiment and to encourage innovation in computer technology and ideas in the academic realm at the University of Chicago. ---To defend the privacy of individuals in computing environments against unjust interference by governmental agencies, University agencies, and other groups and individuals. ---To ensure a safe computing environment, free from harassment. ---To define and examine the discipline structure and measures, and to ensure due process in disciplinary actions by University agents and representatives, regarding computer and networking rules set forth by University policies. ---To make the advantages and resources of computer technology available to as many students as possible by advocating and encouraging the removal of financial, administrative and educational barriers. ---To confer and to work with Academic and Public Computing and their related agencies to help them better serve students, regarding issues, such as, but not limited to: - accessibility of individuals and groups to computing resources and public computing sites - computer and network resource education - software and hardware needs of students ---To confer and to work with Campus Computer Stores to help them better serve students, regarding issues, such as, but not limited to: - education of new computer owners - warranties - prices -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Path: cs.uiuc.edu!kadie From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) Subject: [U. of Chicago] Computing Services Report Message-ID: Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 20:36:41 GMT Lines: 200 [Includes comments about policy and netnews - Carl] Computing Services Report PC Support Present support for campus users of IBM PC-compatible machines is inadequate. However, due to the complexity of PC architecture, it may not be within APC's ability to provide better support. In regards to networking PCs, price and software are significant barriers. At the present time, PC users account for less than 10% of calls to the APC hotline. APC has thus made PC support a low priority. However, PC users definitely account for much more than 10% of computer users on campus. Some part of this discrepancy is likely accounted for by the fact that most users do not perceive the APC hotline as an adequate means of support. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that APC will be able to improve hotline support. PC architecture does not lend itself to remote diagnosis of problems unless users are already at least somewhat familiar with how PCs work. Further, APC reports that they have always had trouble finding people who know PCs well enough to provide support for them. Several years ago, APC had a "dorm gurus" program. The program was not actively supported this year, but APC plans on pursuing it again next year. The SCIC hopes that they will fully support this program. Students can then turn to their dorm's "guru," who will probably be able to provide better support than any remote technician. In addition, APC would like to see the formation of a PC users group, similar to the Amiga users group which already exists. The Committee agrees that this is an excellent idea and will attempt to foster the formation of such a group in the coming year. A much smaller percentage of PC users than Mac users are connected to the residence halls network. One of the reasons for this is the perception that it is expensive to become connected. At the moment, users who purchase their Ethernet boards at CCS will pay at least $115. Suitable Ethernet boards are available elsewhere for around $90. Nevertheless, many students expect to pay $200 for a board. In addition to cost, there is at present insufficient support to help users install their new boards. CCS could likely provide this support, but only if students buy their boards from CCS. For users who do not buy through CCS, dorm gurus or a users group would be the best support. Lastly, the TCP/IP software (SU/IP) currently distributed by APC is unusable. APC has arranged for a site license of FTP Software's PC TCP package, which is a much better solution. While this package is clearly not as nice as the various Macintosh clients, it is certainly one of the better MS-DOS packages available. Unfortunately, it will also cost $65 for each student. Given that cost is one of the major issues for students seeking to network their PCs, it would be desirable if APC could also make available and support a better free package, such as NCSA Telnet. However, APC does not feel that it can adequately support any PC TCP/IP package and thus is recommending the commercial package so that they can call the vendor when there are problems. Summary of recommendations % Formation of a PC users group and active support of "dorm gurus" to address inadequacies in centralized PC support. The SCIC will play a role in this. % Availability of cheaper Ethernet boards at CCS, and publicizing of their availability. % Distribution of improved PC TCP/IP software at low or no cost. $65 is too much. Academic & Public Computing There are many areas in which APC has not made firm policy statements. This include the areas of system use and procedures to be followed in cases of improper use. Also, there is clearly demand for additional capacity on the public UNIX machines, which currently cannot meet usage demands. APC's current policy on system use is that they would prefer not to make rules. Rather, they allow users to do whatever they want within very wide bounds. While the committee does not wish to see users' privileges decreased in any way, it feels that APC must precisely state the privileges of users so that, in the absence of policy, they are not abridged too much in the future. Examples of potential problems are the Usenet feed and disk space. APC presently provides a full, uncensored Usenet feed to all users. However, nowhere do they promise to continue to do this in the future. Thus, if there are ever problems due to disk space or political pressure, the newsfeed could be censored without any input from users. Further, in such a case, users would have no recourse. In regards to disk space, APC does not now impose any sort of quota. The committee definitely does not wish to see such a quota imposed, either. However, APC also will not set a firm amount as the recommended maximum. Thus, if disk space becomes tight, APC could simply delete a users' files, claiming they took too much space. Again, the user would have no recourse due to lack of policy. While these examples may seem extreme, they have happened in other universities, and they show the danger of a lack of a policy to protect students from these dangers. In regards to the capacity of the public Sun cluster, APC has dramatically improved the situation by making a third Sun available to users this year. However, there is clearly even more demand than this third machine can meet. It is not uncommon for all available connections to the three machines to be in use, and we have seen modem users queued for access at midnight and one in the morning. Additional or better machines are thus clearly needed. Disk space is also a problem. Students whose home directories are on q4 are constantly having problems as a result of a full disk. Other drives also tend to be near capacity. Clearly, more disk space should be provided. Summary of recommendations * APC establishment of firm policies in regards to system use before there are problems with the existing loose policy. * Acquisition of more public UNIX machines with more disk space. Campus Computer Stores One of the more important issues that the committee has discussed is that of CCS (Campus Computer Stores) and the effort which the administrators within that organization have been going to in order to secure and provide the university community with the best prices on hardware and software. A committee member met with Eric Hoffmann, a member of the CCS technical support group, and asked questions which had been raised during committee meetings regarding CCS. Information trickled in slowly, but was then concisely presented to the committee during a meeting which Hoffmann attended. The committee members had several concerns, many of them relating to the prices available to the students, as some members claimed that consistently lower prices could be found in academic computing organizations at other schools. Mr. Hoffmann spoke briefly about AppleUs policy which grants discounts to educational institutions, informing the committee that other mid-size private universities such as Harvard, Cornell and Stanford would offer similar prices to students because they fall into the same institutional bracket as the University of Chicago. Other issues raised by the committee dealt with the distance from the store to the warehouse and the size of the retail area of the store. These concerns were forwarded to Mr. Hoffmann during the meetings that he had with the committee member, and he noted that they would be taken into consideration. There is a lack of available space, though, and so there is not anything that CCS can do in the near future concerning the warehouse and the retail area. Another concern raised was that of the frequent delays between placement and receipt of orders. Vendor backlogs account for these delays, since a CCS customer can be reasonably sure that the order was placed within a few days of payment. The issue of MS-DOS support was also raised. However, CCS technical support resources must be allocated in proportion to product sales. Because non-Apple products account for only 20% of sales, support for non-Apple products, including MS-DOS, is necessarily limited. On a different front, the committee also investigated the organizational ties between CCS and the University proper. The University administration requires CCS to make a profit of no less than $450,000 per year, not including money to be allocated to the rent and the salaries of the 23 full time CCS employees. To meet this goal, CCS is required to operate as a business and not as a service to students, maintaining a profit margin of 8-12%. If prices were lowered, decreasing the profitability of CCS, the university could discontinue this RserviceS entirely. In summation, the committee found that CCS seems to be serving the students well, given the restrictions under which they are operating. Eric Hoffmann will be, as he is now, a good person to contact with questions and concerns that involve CCS as well as other closely related issues. Summary of recommendations * Administrative review of CCSUs role within the University of Chicago community to determine whether CCS should be treated as a service or a business. Residence Halls Computing In our investigation of the computing sites within the dormitories at the University of Chicago, the committee was surprised to discover that although these sites fall under the realm of APC supervised and maintained computing sites, they are lacking much in terms of hardware, software, and support. At first it seemed as if Residence Halls & Commons was in control of these sites, but this was proven false; in fact, all of the computers in the dormitory public computing sites were donations to the University (belonging to the University and not to APC) and have never been upgraded by the University, APC, or RH&C. RH&C has no interest in helping to update or maintain any of this equipment. Any additional equipment to be utilized within the dormitory computing sites must be donated to the University through APC, which would then allocate it according to individual site needs. On the other hand, it has been mentioned that APC would donate a matching computer to any house that put forth the funds to purchase its own, but this has not been publicized. APC has also donated numerous LaserWriter printers to dormitories. There has been an instance where a house bought its own computer to be used by members of the house, but the fact that many harassing Broadcast messages can be traced back to this house-owned computer is discouraging. The members of the committee expressed interest in contacting Apple Computer to inquire about their policies regarding academic donations and pricing, but until recently the committee has had difficulty contacting an Apple representative. Overall, the committee was very disappointed with what was found within the residential computing sites, and everyone on the committee expressed interest in trying to improve this situation. Summary of recommendations * Placement of residence halls computing facilities within the jurisdiction of only one organization, possibly APC. -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Path: cs.uiuc.edu!kadie From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) Subject: [U. of Chicago] SCIC Recommendations Message-ID: Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 20:36:02 GMT Lines: 41 SCIC Recommendations Network Rights & Responsibilities * A formal discipline structure should be created that defines the relationship between Academic & Public Computing and the Dean of Students office. * Account privileges are in a perilous balance. Currently, APC has the power to revoke accounts without a formal discipline procedure. Such a procedure, which includes the protection of due process, should be drafted immediately. * Students should be made aware of harassment policies and how they extend to the electronic community. * While publicly shared UNIX machines are by no means secure or completely private, APC should play an active role in guaranteeing such privacy and security. As well, there is no promise or position statement by APC that discusses the privacy of student files in relation to APC staff. * APC should make greater attempts to teach users about UNIX security, so that users will be aware of the insecurities of UNIX. Computing Services * Placement of residence halls computing facilities within the jurisdiction of only one organization, possibly APC. * Administrative review of CCSUs role within the University of Chicago community to determine whether CCS should be treated as a service or a business. * APC establishment of firm policies in regards to system use before there are problems with the existing loose policy. * Acquisition of more public UNIX machines with more disk space. * Formation of a PC users group and active support of "dorm gurus" to address inadequacies in centralized PC support. The SCIC will play a role in this. * Availability of cheaper Ethernet boards at CCS, and publicizing of their availability. * Distribution of improved PC TCP/IP software at low or no cost to students. -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Path: cs.uiuc.edu!kadie From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) Subject: [U. of Chicago] Future Goals of SCIC Message-ID: Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 20:37:11 GMT Lines: 42 SCIC Future Goals and Objectives * Our most important goal, addressing student concerns through answering their complaints and input and proposing solutions to the administration to meet the student bodyUs needs, will continue to be pursued as our first priority. * The committee has expressed interest in assembling a pamphlet or guidebook that would provide information concerning the purchasing of software, hardware, and other computer products off campus. We plan on following the examples of BerkeleyUs Mac User Group (BMUG) newsletter and HarvardUs computer resource guide. Committee members agreed that it would be best to work on this project next year, after the committee has become more firmly established. In the meantime, members will be gathering inconspicuously advertised discounts and tips to be followed up on and perhaps published in the booklet. * We plan on forming an IBM-PC users group, under direction of Andrew Hatchell, an experienced PC user. The group will provide informal support for MS-DOS, OS/2, and Windows users. Microsoft, a leading software developer, has expressed interest in helping support such a group by providing software resources for the groupUs members. We feel that this will be a large incentive to bring PC users together. * We will be providing, with Academic & Public ComputingUs support, Orientation Week classes for incoming first-year students in the college. We feel that most student knowledge regarding computing is learned in a peer- to-peer relationship, and we hope to draw on that relationship to teach students how to more effectively use computing resources at the University of Chicago. We also plan to invite incoming graduate students to these courses. * We plan on expanding our Gopher service, which will provide an invaluable resource for bringing information to students that deals with specific student computing issues. -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Path: cs.uiuc.edu!kadie From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) Subject: [U. of Chicago] Rights & Responsibilities Rprt. Message-ID: Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 20:37:37 GMT Lines: 95 Networking Rights & Responsibilities Harassment While the computer networks allow more efficient and expansive communication and relay of information, some problems result from this situation. One net user can harass another user, without ever seeing their face or knowing their true identity. Reception of threatening electronic messages or disruption of computing work are usually the results of such harassment. While such actions may be concerned more impersonal than RdirectS harassment, such behavior is intolerable and perfectly fits the definition of harassment, and should be treated the same as any other form of harassment, no matter where it takes place or how it is done. However, because of the complexities of electronic communication and the lack of being able to discern who actually is committing the actions (i.e.. harassment of an individual by using some innocent personUs account without their permission), electronic harassment is not taken as seriously by the electronic community as it should be. APC tends to reflect this attitude, as well. The committee has contacted members of APC staff, former and current, to figure out the process that APC undertakes to investigate harassment claims by individual students. Oftentimes, from the studentUs perspective, the following scenario occurs. A student receives a threatening message. They forward a copy to the system administrators, and they may or may not get a reply. If they do get a reply, it is usually a very curt response stating that APC will take care of it. Nothing more is ever communicated to the student. While it is common place to protect the accusedUs privacy, the student never finds out whether or not their complaint is even taken seriously or not. According to APC sources, if a student complaint is Rserious enoughS, the appropriate information is forwarded to the Dean of Students office, after an informal interview or attempts for communication with the accused have taken place. An allegedly harassed student does not even know that such a referral has occurred. One would hope that the appropriate disciplinary action would be taken by the Dean of Students office at that point. This situation is unsatisfactory and is unfair to any student who has ever been harassed electronically. The problems with this procedure, and the possible solutions, follow: * APC is not required to forward all complaints of harassment to the Dean of Students office. This goes against all other examples of University policy. If a student is harassed in student housing, and the student reports the problem to a Resident Head, for example, they are required to forward that complaint to the Housing Office, which is required to forward the complaint to the Dean of Students. As well, the Resident Head is prompted to investigate the claim. APC does not hold to this type of practice. One APC administrator stated to the committee that a student can always go to the Dean of Students with a harassment complaint, but this is not satisfactory. Just as a student who had a problem in housing would go to housing staff, a student who had a problem in computing would go to computing staff. It is APCUs responsibility to forward these claims, and an implicit relationship should be established and presented to the student body. * A student claiming electronic harassment receives no input or feedback from APC as to the status of their complaint. We feel that this is not in the best interests of deterring future harassment. We suggest that a student panel should be created to advise victims of electronic harassment, and to possibly help APC investigate such claims from a studentUs perspective. Account Privileges While APC has claimed that they have never removed an individual's account on the public UNIX machines, there is no protection of due process for the suspension of a student account. Therefore, under the current system, a student could be accused of breaking a system rule and have their account closed immediately, never hearing a word. Even though APC does not follow such a practice, the committee feels that some written guarantee of due process for account privileges necessary to uphold student rights. Privacy APC has stated in their policy documents that students have the right to expect the documents that they create or receive to be private. Electronic communications are considered to be on the same protected level for privacy as voice or paper communications. Just as we expect our letter carrier not to steam our letters open and read them before he delivers them to our home, we should expect APC staff, who are in essence Rletter carriersS for electronic mail, not to read our private messages as they are transmitted or stored. As simple and straightforward as this may seem, APC has never made such an explicit statement to the student body at large. We feel that the failure to issue such a statement is detrimental to student privacy rights. As well, it is important that the same attitudes and policies towards student privacy in other realms of the University, such as student mail delivery service and student housing, be ported across to the electronic community. Further reports regarding privacy and networking rights at the University of Chicago will follow at the beginning of Autumn Quarter. -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Path: cs.uiuc.edu!kadie From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) Subject: [U. of Chicago] SCIC Accomplishments Message-ID: Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 20:38:10 GMT Lines: 44 SCIC Accomplishments Over the 1992-1993 School Year The committee has pursued the following goals during our first year: * Engaging in meaningful dialogue regarding computing with the student body, faculty, and staff. * Expanding our knowledge of the inner-workings of the computing organizations on campus. * Informing the student body about computing resources and advocating the use of those resources. * Defending the student bodyUs right to use computer resources free from harassment, while guaranteeing privacy. * Advocating structural changes to the current administration to make computing easier and more Ruser-friendly.S We have accomplished the following tasks during this school year: * We have setup vital communication channels with various institutions on and off campus, such as the Dean of Students of the University, Academic and Public Computing, Campus Computer Stores, Biological Sciences Computing, Computer Science Department, Apple Computer, Microsoft Corporation, and most importantly, the student body at-large. * We have created various channels for students to provide input and receive information about the committee, such as an electronic mail address and a Gopher site, which allows students to easily retrieve reports, documentation, and other means of support, via the campus-wide network. * We have successfully advocated the installation of encryption software on the publicly shared computers, which adds a vital layer of security and privacy for the users of those sites. * We have investigated computing facilities in residence halls, and have successfully advocated the doubling of IP addresses in Burton-Judson and Shoreland dormitories, which have made it much easier for every student in those dormitories to connect to the campus ethernet and the Internet. * We have taken action against attacks upon privacy by the federal government, by sending letters to congressmen and President Clinton regarding such issues as the presentation of the Clipper encryption chip. * We have fostered public debate on computing issues on Usenet newsgroups. * We have frequently brought specific student concerns to Academic and Public Computing. * We have written and approved a constitution and mission & purpose statement for the committee. -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =