HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:40:11 GMT

Amherst College's primary computer system is a VAX running VMS, which
allows each person with an active process to set their "process name"
to any fifteen-character string.  Since these process names show up in
the output of the "who" command on our VMS system, people tend to set
them to nicknames or cutesy little sayings.

While there is no censorship of any kind of .plan files or news
postings or email -- the staff is very strict about keeping freedom of
expression open on those lines -- users are not permitted to have
process names that others might find "objectionable," in terms of
profanity.  This restriction is in effect primarily because it is very
easy to see other process names "accidentally," whereas people have to
go out of their way to read news or .plan files.  I don't quite agree
with that distinction, but c'est la vie.

The "punishment" for breaking this rule is very mild: a brief note
from the computer center director explaining the rule and the reasons
for it.  I have no idea what would happen to repeat offenders, but I
suspect very little; very few things would cause you actually to lose
your account at Amherst.

Any thoughts?  This seems like a borderline case to me.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3066 comp.org.eff.talk:6271 comp.admin.policy:1222 alt.censorship:7859 soc.college:4140
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.society.privacy] Re: SSN in login ids / posting grades
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:14:24 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 16:19:20 MDT
From: Tom Wicklund <wicklund@intellistor.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: SSN in login ids / posting grades

In comp.society.privacy Dave Grabowski <dcg5662@hertz.njit.edu> writes:

>  A few weeks ago, I posted a msg about how NJIT uses student's SSN's
>for Student ID's and for UNIX System ID's as well. It was the custom for
>exam grades to be posted by SSN as well, but as I just found out today,
>it seems that, at least in the Physics Dept., this is no longer going to
>be done. They have now changed it so that the listing is done by >FIRST
>NAME< only. This has GOT to be the most ridiculous way to post grades.
>The Prof. mentioned that in one of his other classes, there were three
>"Mark"'s in a row. Another person (who was checking her grade while I
>was) said, "Nobody else has my name, anyway" (it was something obscure,
>like Aretha).

Any system of publicly posting grades is going to voilate privacy.
Whether a student ID is a social security number or a unique within
the university ID, it can be misused.  And most of the time grades
posted by student ID are still listed in alphabetical order (making it
easy to find people near the start or end of the alphabet).

If one wants grade privacy, then professors should be encouraged not
to post grades.  Ideally the university will have a reliable way to
inform students of grades in a timely fashion.


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:17:08 GMT

Hey, Mud Man, you might want to stop sending out articles with
malformed Newsgroups lines.  Be a little *less* antisocial, and all
that rot.

In article <718349227.11579@zooid.guild.org> ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:

>I always found it a hoot to keep an execute only program in my directory that
>claimed to be a Star Trek program, "detected" unauthorized access, then erased
>itself after sending codes to scramble the computer lab tech's terminal.

When I was in second grade, I knew a kid who loved nothing in the
world more than to stomp on slugs on the sidewalk.

I don't know what happened to him.  He seemed like a grade-A alpha
male candidate for a straitjacket, though.

>This was perhaps a little mean, but I was
>provoked, and as I had the system master passwords at the time, quite a
>limited response.

Can we say "sting?"  Can we say "power trip?"  Can we say it loud?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:18:52 GMT

In article <BETSYS.92Sep30104251@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:

>I protest our inclusion in a list entitled "Banned Materials."
>We do not ban ANY legal materials. All we ask is that obscene, sexual,
>or violent (or obnoxious ASCII or excessively long) materials be made
>available at user request, and not shown to users who have not
>requested this display.
>   There's a BIG DIFFERENCE. You are allowed to own, advertise, and 
>distribute any speech you like. For example, any user may post in
>their .plan file or on our bulletin board  "for sexually explicit
>lyrics, see my publicly readable file dirty.txt" 

Betsy, this looks very much like censorship to me. A user's .plan file is
not normally *forced* on anyone; what is the logic to regulating its
content?

You say you "do not ban ANY legal materials." Then you list among the
materials that you regulate "obscene, sexual, or violent (or obnoxious
ASCII or excessively long) materials." Although obscenity is regulable
under the Constitution, all of the other categories of materials you
mention here are presumptive *legal* speech.

Your explanation of your policy makes it apparent to me that you *do*
deserve inclusion in the censorship list. If you have questions about
this, feel free to call me at the office--it's a local call.

>    I think this is analagous to a student newspaper requiring
>political speech to be on the editorial pages, or requiring political
>groups to use bulletin boards instead of plastering the walls. You are
>allowed to speak but others are allowed to choose to receive your
>material or not.

It's trivial to choose not to see a user's .plan file, Betsy. Your analogy
doesn't hold.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung
From: dejesus@archimedes.nwc.navy.mil (Francisco X DeJesus)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:44:39 GMT
Organization: Science Applications International Corp.

In article <1992Sep30.065537.23479@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Banned Computer Material 1992
...
>Any "unwarranted annoyance" or "unsolicited email" at *Virginia Tech*
>     ... banned by the Information System's Appropriate Use Policy.
...
>Any computer files at *Boston University* that anyone else finds
>offensive or annoying
>     The rules at Boston University prohibit a computer user from "making
>     accessible offensive [or] annoying ... material".

How the hell do you define "annoying"? Does anyone at those schools find the
policy itself "annoying"? What if someone find the "vi" editor annoying? Is
the system administrator forced to erase it? "Gee prof, I wish I could have
finished that programming assignment, but I found it annoying and thus
couldn't work on it online!" :-)

>All rude articles at *Iowa State University*
>     On-line rudeness is prohibited by Iowa State computer policy. A
>     student was reprimanded for posting a rude article to the net.

Heh. Guess they banned flame wars there too! Wonder what kind of filtering
they must do in their news system to accomplish that! 
-- 
#define DISCLAIMER   "I speak only for myself!"
Francisco X DeJesus  -------- S A I C --------  dejesus@archimedes.nwc.navy.mil
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3021 comp.org.eff.talk:6214 comp.admin.policy:1180 alt.censorship:7816 soc.college:4108
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
From: jim.wenzel@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Jim Wenzel) 
Date: 3 Oct 92 03:29:00 GMT
Reply-To: jim.wenzel@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Jim Wenzel) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121


Adam Bonin * Ok, fine, what about it? If  the right to privacy is indeed
             a natural  right,  than  nothing,  nothing  can  be done to
             pierce  that  inviolable  sphere.  If  a  father abuses his
             children, can  he claim that  his home is  a private sphere
             and that the law does not  apply there? How about drug use?
             If  that  is  a  private  matter,  than  do  you  hold that
             government can do nothing to stop its spread? If you answer
             'yes'   to  either   question,  then   privacy  is   not  a
             fundamental, unalienable right.
                                 = = =

  In  case #1  that you  present it  is also  the private  sphere of the
  children. (alternate thought.. if more than one person share a private
  sphere is  it still private  or public?) Since  harm has befallen  the
  children who also have rights if  they wish the laws would apply. Same
  with  drug use  IMHO. Right  to  privacy  ends when  it hurts  another
  person. I beleive  this is the distinction that is  being made. What I
  do in my  own home is my business. Should  it affect other people then
  I have abused my right.  ie.. playing a stereo too loud.


Adam Bonin * "He who accepts evil without  fighting against it is really
             cooperating with it." -Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
                                 = = =

   good quote.
---
 * SM 1.06 A0059 * Go ahead...MAKE MY DOWNLOAD!!!
                              
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3048 comp.org.eff.talk:6257 comp.admin.policy:1201 alt.censorship:7845 soc.college:4134
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 5 Oct 92 09:13:28 GMT
Organization: Aston University

kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: 
: Newsgroups alt.sex*, alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and
: rec.arts.erotica on *UKNet*
:      UKNet is an academic network in the United Kingdom.
:           news/cafv02n33:<1992Jun08.165434.4998@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
:           news/cafv02n30:<1992May19.093311.105@rdg.dec.com>

We now recieve news via another link, which also happens to be faster
than UKNet....
When I asked the local news admin about the (no longer) censored groups
here, he said 'I have better things to do than look through articles to
see if they are ok, but I don't claim that this is necessarly the official
viewpoint'
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2949 comp.org.eff.talk:6113 comp.admin.policy:1128 alt.censorship:7759 soc.college:4055
From: raan@techunix.technion.ac.il (Ran Ever-Hadani)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:25:56 GMT
Organization: Technion, Israel Institute of Technology

In <92275.104628HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> Hank Nussbacher <HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> writes:

#In article <1992Sep30.065537.23479@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) says:

#>Newsgroups at *many German universities* that discuss sex, including
#>discussion of recovery from sexual abuse
#...
#>Netnews discussion in *Ireland* of abortion
#...
#>Netnews discussion via Switzerland's SWITCH of gay rights, of drugs
#>and drug policy, and of sex and recovery from sexual abuse. Also,
#>United Press International articles related to terrorism or sex
#...
#>All on-line political or religions "activism" at *Middle East
#>Technical University in Turkey*
#...
#>Newsgroups alt.sex*, alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and
#>rec.arts.erotica on *UKNet*
#>     UKNet is an academic network in the United Kingdom.

#Unless I am mistaken, the US Bill of Rights which include the right to
#free speech, etc. has not been accepted as the Bill of Rights to the World.
#Have you checked that each of these countries (Ireland, Turkey, etc.) have
#a law of free speech as the US does?  Or are you merely applying your own
#form of geocentricism which dictates that the entire world has to follow
#what the USA says and does?

I believe that freedom of speech is an important principle everywhere.
The fact that the US has a Bill of Rights is important as a legal means
to fight for various freedoms within the US, but the fact that such a bill
does not exist in many other countries does not diminish the obligation
of all of us, American or otherwise, to advocate freedom of speech as a
universal principal.  When Jews were not allowed to leave the Soviet
Union, many Americans stood with us, demanding that gates of the
Soviet Union be opened, even though the Bill of Right was never
accepted by the Soviet Union.  I am pretty sure that you would not accuse
those Americans of genocentricism.

-- Ran
Tel-Aviv, Israel
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:02:40 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 10:45:04 GMT

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>No one should act on my say-so. Any action should be based on a belief
>that something is wrong and should be taken within institutional
>guidelines.

Something is most *definitely* wrong, Carl. You just won't have
any of it.

>>Um, on just what date *are* we celebrating Krystalnacht this year?
>[...]
>The idea that publicizing censorship is the same as terrorizing Jews
>is despicable.

My, my, "despicable", is it?  Well, I'm truly wounded to the quick. :-)

Anyone who would attach the inflammatory word "BANNING" to any action
of mere university officials makes clear association with the current
tragedy in South Africa, and is thus hardly in a position to lay claim
to the high moral ground. Or to posture in indignation over indelicate
comparisons made by others.

So, now that the salutory pleasantries are out of the way, let's cut
directly to the chase, shall we.....

The fact that you cannot see the similarity of *tactic* -- not to be
confused with a similarity of *objective* -- perfectly validates the
criticisms you have drawn. You are, in fact, attempting to drum up
support for having others spread the word of your judgement against
actions of institutions that fail to measure up to your notion of
how the world should grind about on its moderately unstable axis.

That you will find others who agree with you is assured, and quite
beside the point. The point IS that there will be some who do *not*
agree with your absolutist, self-righteous pretense to some special
gift to judge other people -- people who may have taken their decisions
with perhaps no less devotion to higher moral principle than that
which you generously assign to yourself in taking yours. And with
batting averages that factually may be no worse than your own.

That you may disagree with those decisions is perfectly reasonable.
They are fit objects of debate by you or anyone else. Some of them
are probably terribly flawed. Maybe all. Maybe none. Not my point.

You aren't simply *debating* the merits or demerits of these thorny
decisions. Quite the contrary.

By pronouncing summary judgement, you thereby attempt to finesse an
appearance that debate has already *concluded* in favor of your own
pet notions.

It doesn't wash.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3080 comp.org.eff.talk:6297 comp.admin.policy:1238 alt.censorship:7880 soc.college:4155
From: joslin_paul@ae.ge.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:38:44 GMT
Reply-To: joslin_paul@ae.ge.com
Distribution: na
Organization: GE Aircraft Engines
Originator: news@c0228.ae.ge.com

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
>foreign policy to Carl Kadie.


However, he has done more than his share to increase the amount of
traffic on the Internet. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Seriously: does anyone think the world would be a better place if people
like Carl didn't care?

Paul

Yea, Yea, I know: "How is Sep_20 CAFNEWS coming?"
Real Soon Now. Really
-- 
     Paul R. Joslin     | 
joslin@c0223.ae.ge.com  | When you have a new hammer,
   +1 513 583 3537      | everything looks like a nail.
From: 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:38:15 GMT

In article <BvGq02.6yz@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.141116.10025@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
> 
>>Personally, I view the distinction between storing and using such a program as
>>rather like the distinction between possessing and using burglary tools
> 
> What are "burglary tools?"  Putty knives?  Glass cutters?  You know,
> burglars don't put on a little black mask and send away to ACME for
> "Burglar's Kits."
> 
> I could see a perfectly legitimate use for owning even a small set of
> lockpicks: my lock is such that I cannot *leave* it unlocked, but must
> always have my key if I wish to open the door.  If I accidentally lock
> my keys in my room, I don't really want to have to pay Amherst College
> $10 so that campus security can come and open my door.  At BSU,
> however, I suppose this personal safeguard is Right Out.
> 
>>or an
>>unlicensed concealed weapon.  
> 
> There is no "license" for owning a password cracking program.  The
> analogy fails.
> 

All analogies fail, Tim.  That's why I prefaced that statement with
"Personally."  Face it; system security relies heavily on judgment calls, both
as to how to interpret policy and as to how to react to something that might
fall outside of written policy.  And as long as there is human judgment
involved there is also the risk of error.  Fortunately, most universities, like
ours, have ways of correcting or avoiding such errors, like a simple phone call
or a prior arrangement with systech for a temporary exception.  Security also
depends on people behaving reasonably and responsibly, which are also matters
of judgment.  Since I'm not at liberty to discuss the posting that started all
this, I can't talk about the judgment calls that were involved, but it wasn't
simple.
           
I suppose if you carried around a set of lock picks on this campus you would
have no problem unless there were a rash of burglaries, the campus police had
some probable cause for arresting you, and they searched you and found the lock
picks.  Even then, the fact that they arrest you as a suspect doesn't mean 
you're guilty or will be found so.  

Let's leave some room for judgment here and not make the assumption that
administrators are by definition hard-nosed and inflexible.

Let's also recognize that the "Banned...1992" listing was simply a listing of
extracts from postings received over the year.  I don't know that we have much
idea of the judgment that underlay either the summarizing process, in itself a
creative act, or the decision as to what constitutes a case of censorship, also
a creative act.  In other words, neither what was contained in the listing nor
the postings it was based on tell the whole story.

Herb Stahlke
Ball State University
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv]  Re: Status of connectivity to xSU by US Federal nets
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,eff.mail.com-priv
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:41:11 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: nipper@ira.uka.de (Arnold Nipper)
Subject:  Re: Status of connectivity to xSU by US Federal nets
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:20:54 GMT

>PS: Countries whose nets are announced on the NSFNET Backbone are listed in
>/statistics/nets.by.country, available by anonymous ftp from nis.nsf.net.  -s

/statistics/nsfnet/nets.by.country

Arnold Nipper
XLINK
-- 
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.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 15:14:32 GMT

In article <BETSYS.92Oct1150743@ra.cs.umb.edu> betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>  I'm not a prude, I read some of the more offbeat newsgroups myself.
>I just dont want to have bathroom limericks scrolling across my
>screen.

It's ^S you're wanting, then.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Glad to be of cervix...
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: holland@access.digex.com (Brian Holland)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:16:00 GMT

In article <BvFDAp.M9r@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
> . . . but I am highly offended by plans and posts with vocal
>anti-gay content in them.  Why should the university say, "It's all
>right to be offended by obscenity, but not by homophobia?"

Tim, I can't tell if you are indicting "hate-speech" regulations or
are using them to justify censoring .plan files; however, I think
you have captured the essence of freedom of expression.  Freedom
of expression means nothing without the freedom to offend.  

Brian


Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk