HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:10:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.064733.22424@terminator.cc.umich.edu> pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth) writes:

>In article <BvELx1.A4J@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>What if users include sexually explicit text in their .plans, preceded
>>by a sequence of form feeds (^L) and the statement "Sexually explicit
>>material follows; press ^C now if it is likely to offend you?"
>
>I take exception to the suggestion that Ice T lyrics are no more than
>an indulgence in "dirty words".

For Christ's sake, who said anything about Ice-T?  Stick to the
subject.

-- 
____ 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
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:13:19 GMT

In article <1afb5pINN9so@early-bird.think.com>, barmar@think (Barry Margolin) writes:
>The Supreme Court has ruled that there
>are limits to the freedom of speech the first amendment confers.

>And
>obscenity has been declared by the Supreme Court not to be protected
>speech.

The topic wasn't what any of the Supreme Courts since the founding of
USA have said, the topic was what the Constitution says.

Does the Constitution give a monopoly of interpretation to the Supreme Court?

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv]  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 15:17:04 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: steve@cise.cise.nsf.gov (Stephen Wolff)
Subject:  Status of connectivity to xSU by US Federal nets
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:50:01 GMT

On behalf of the R&E community, NSF sought and in June, 1991 received a
letter from the Department of Commerce authorizing IP connectivity to the
so-called Eastern bloc.  In a second letter from Commerce in January, 1992,
the authorization was reaffirmed and clarified; i.e., that the concern was
export control, **not** the connectivity itself.

Accordingly, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, have been now for some
time announced on the NSFNET Backbone; somewhat more recently, Estonia is
reachable as are (potentially) the other Baltic states.

Although connectivity to the xSU is covered by the Commerce letters to NSF,
at the request of the Federal Networking Council (FNC) the NSF agreed not to
carry such traffic on the NSFNET Backbone.  This concession was nugatory
until two recent events:  a network in the xSU is now being announced by the
CIX, so that it can (and does) exchange traffic with non-Federal US nets,
and Federal mission agencies are establishing what amount to point-to-point
links from specific sites in the xSU to specific US computational resources.

At the FNC meeting on Thursday, the 24th September, the NSF therefore asked
the FNC to reconsider its position, since a side effect of the growing
connectivity (which is either "non-R&E" or is between unilaterally-selected
scientists and sites in the US and the xSU) is to disenfranchise a large
fraction of the US R&E community whose aspirations for unrestricted
scientific and educational collaboration with their peers and colleagues in
the xSU NSF fully endorses.

-s

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
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:13:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

[A repost - Carl]

From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:29:41 GMT

According to bud@mtek.com:
>My larger concern is with the notion of an "enemies list" of offending
>(in his eyes) institutions which, presumably, Carl believes others
>should hotly pursue on his say-so...

"Presumably?"  I'm amazed that anyone would "presume" any such thing!
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
    "My favorite phenomenon is when someone mails me or posts to this
     group, either calling me a newbie or telling me that my postings
     are not relevant to alt.non.sequitur."           -- Matt Welsh
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:43:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.085545.10128@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:

>I'd like to see the budget of the school where system managers have time to go
>'stomping through the filesystem, searching for "burglary tools,"' not to
>mention their ethics code.

Agreed.  On the other hand, when you say that you "do not allow" users
to keep such tools on the university computer system, either you do
such a thing or the policy largely goes unenforced.

-- 
____ 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: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:24:05 GMT

betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:

>I protest our inclusion in a list entitled "Banned Materials."

Why am I not surprised.


>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.

It's based on content.  That constitutes censorship.  Who decides what
is or is not "obscene, sexual, or violent"?  If the specific logic to
decide what is or is not, is in writing, why not POST IT HERE (and of
course you would make it available to everyone on campus).  If there
is no such specifics, how can anyone know in advance?


>   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" 

IMHO, you can place a size limit on .plan files, or just make your finger
server ignore them altogether.

The .plan file is a place.  If you want to restrict the PLACE, fine;
its is the property of the university.  But if it is decided to allow
speech there, it cannot be based on its CONTENT.


>    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.

If political groups are not allowed to use walls, but all the other
groups ARE ALLOWED TO PLASTER THE WALLS, then you sure have a funny
policy.  Wanna bet the the policy REALLY says that the walls are simply
not the forum?

If the newspaper decides to organize the things they are choosing to print
in their own facility, that is their decision.  If they are suddenly
restricted by outside decision makers on the basis of their content,
then we have a problem again.


>(*ie we would ban pirated software)

It's already specified as illegal, so this is easy enough to do.
-- 
/***********************************************************************\
| Phil Howard  ---  KA9WGN  ---  pdh@netcom.com   |   "The problem with |
| depending on government is that you cannot depend on it" - Tony Brown |
\***********************************************************************/
From: 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:55:45 GMT

In article <Bvov0M.4sL@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <1992Oct5.093442.24753@aston.ac.uk> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>: 
>>: 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."
>>
>>Tools used for burglary, which are posessed with INTENT to use them for
>>that purpose.
> 
> Uh-huh.  And what *are* those tools?  How do you identify them?
> 
> Similarly, I could own a copy of Crack, or some other security
> protection software, simply because I wanted to learn more about
> security or coding system software.  I could own this program but
> divide it into unrelated parts to avoid detection.  If my system            
> manager went stomping through the filesystem, searching for "burglary
> tools," he'd either not find me, or he'd find me and a couple dozen
> other people.
> 

As I've noted several times, there are acceptable ways of studying security
measures.  A Computer Science course dealing with operating systems and
security systems might legitimately arrange for time develop, test, and run
code, within limits that would be worked out with the instructor.  On the other
hand, there may also be security measures that the university doesn't want
people looking at because they would then cease to provide the intended
security.  It's unlikely, for example, that a university would allow users to
roam at will through security on an administrative mainframe where a lot of
critical and confidential data is stored, and someone attempting to break into
that might be subject to prosecution. 

I'd like to see the budget of the school where system managers have time to go
'stomping through the filesystem, searching for "burglary tools,"' not to
mention their ethics code.
       
> Alas, getting a second set of keys here is akin to cleaning the Aegean
                                                                  ~~~~~~
> stables. 

I believe that's "Augean" stables, the cleaning of which, after thirty years,
was one of the labors of Hercules.  I do like the image.

Herb Stahlke
Ball State University
 
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: Fachschaft Informatik, Uni Karlsruhe
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:11:44 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <1992Oct1.173240.7942@glas.rtsg.mot.com> waider@glas.rtsg.mot.com writes:

>  twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>  
>  [Process names restriction]
>  
>  >Any thoughts?  This seems like a borderline case to me.
>  
>  In the University of Limerick, Ireland, there was a security incident involving
>  a user who had the process name "Baader". Subsequent to his "trial" and
>  expulsion from the college for a year, another student set his process name to
>  "Baader" and promptly found himself disusered.
>  
>  A touch rough, no?

I agree that it is a touch rough. But I'm curious whether the name
"Baader" in the first case had anything to do with the German
terrorist Andreas Baader, or if this was just coincidence?

MfG,
        Olaf
-- 
    o     Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student - univ of karlsruhe - germany
 _ /<_    s_titz@iravcl.ira.uka.de - uknf@dkauni2.bitnet - praetorius@irc
(_)>(_)   +49-721-60439 - did i forget something?
BUGS: As given by the -roaches option. Default is 10. - man xroach
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:07:29 GMT

kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

[...]
>Personally, I view the distinction as rather like the distinction
>between possessing a book that tells how to steal and actually
>stealing. That is why I see it has censorship.

>BTW: Academic libraries are full of books and reports that could be
>used to break rules and laws. As one example:
[...]

Here are some more from various libraries on our library computer
system. (Don't worry I won't post any more).

                                          BIBLIOGRAPHIC DISPLAY

        1. Alth, Max, All about locks and locksmithing. :1972: vii, 180 p. 
            ocm00-356933  
        2. Roper, C. A. The complete handbook of locks & locksmithing / 
           1st ed. c1976. 390 p.    ocm02-645692  
        3. Roper, C. A. The complete book of locks & locksmithing / 2nd
           ed. c1983. viii, 343 p.    ocm08-974655  
        4. Steed, F. A. Locksmithing / 1st ed. c1982. vii, 172 p.   
           ocm07-948542  
        5. Mobile locksmithing. c1984. 141 leaves in various
           foliations ocm15-288524
        6. Crichton, Whitcomb. Practical course in modern locksmithing : 
           a Benj. Franklin illustrated home-study course complete in
           one volume / New ed. 1979, c1957 223 p.    ocm08-014707  
        7. Robinson, Robert L. Complete course in professional
           locksmithing :1973: xv, 399 p.   ocm00-591861  
        8. Marseille (France) Citizens. Tres-respectueuses
           representations adressees a Mgr. Victor-Maurice de
           Riquet, Comte de Caraman, . . . 1789:  8, :2: p.   
           ocm13-117455  
        9. Marseille (France) Citizens. Deliberation / 1789:  7 p.   
           ocm13-090790  
       10. Mayers, Keith. A dictionary of locksmithing / c1979 62 p.   
           ocm06-488518  
       11. Locksmith :questions & answers: c1972. 1 v. (various pagings)  
            ocm07-602859  
       12. Maintenance locksmith :questions & answers: c1972. 1 v.
           (various pagings)    ocm07-602875  
       13. Crichton, Whitcomb. Practical course in modern locksmithing / 
           new ed. 1979, c1957. 224 p.    ocm07-408368  
       14. Locksmith ledger and security register. Security guide and
           directory.  v.   ocm04-407913  
       15. Roper, C. A. The complete book of locks and locksmithing / 
           1990. p. cm.   ocm22-182180  
       16. Phillips, Bill, Professional locksmithing techniques / Bill
           Phillips. 1st ed. 1991. x, 374 p.    ocm22-388733  
       17. Mobile locksmithing. c1988. 164 leaves (loose-leaf)   
           ocm20-278321  
       18. Locksmith c1988. 1 v. (various pagings)    ocm18-328320  
       19. Locksmith. c1990. 1 v. (various pagings)    ocm26-065688  
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Sysadmin for a Day
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:05:23 GMT

kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>>When a given piece of code can be compiled, executed, and deleted in one
>>hour (or less, if you've a faster system), how can we effectively control
>>the execution of a program WITHOUT controlling the source code?
>
>>If the source code were available in hardcopy only, would you be satisfied?

You didn't remark on this notion; is it acceptable?

>>If you were a system admin, how would *you* handle it?
>[...]
>
>Disclaimer: I have no experience as a sys admin.
>
                                                      
I'll try to pull together some thoughts I've expressed elsewhere in this group
and answer the question above.  

My responsibility does not extend to the contents of users' offices, domiciles,
cars, brief cases, etc.  If they want to have hardcopy--or even an electronic
copy on a floppy or on their personal computer--of a password cracker or other
code designed to break system security, that is their concern.  If they want to
study such code, they can contact systech and arrange for permission and time
to do so, under some sort of agreed-upon oversight.  We draw the line at
storing such code university systems without prior arrangement.  The line has
to be drawn somewhere, and we've found this an effective and not overly
restrictive place to draw it.  What I've described here is what we ask of our
users, as I wrote in another post:  reasonable and responsible behavior.  

Incidentally, our systech staff do not enter user directories without user
permission or prior authorization from the Associate Director or Director of
University Computing Services, and we give such authorization rarely and with
great care.  We too regard user accounts as private and respect that privacy.
                     
The question that has no easy or general answer is, "When do security or legal 
considerations outweigh the user's right to privacy?"  The answer has to be,
"Not very readily, but conditions may force them to."  To speculate as to what
those conditions might be would be to invite more of the casuistry that a few
participants in this discussion have shown a readiness to wallow in.
                                                         
Herb Stahlke
Ball State University
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: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:33:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.170410.12431@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:

>When a given piece of code can be compiled, executed, and deleted in one
>hour (or less, if you've a faster system), how can we effectively control
>the execution of a program WITHOUT controlling the source code?
>
>If the source code were available in hardcopy only, would you be satisfied?

You'd have to burn the book it appears in, Wes. After all, a person could
scan the source, or type it in, on his own PC, upload it to your system,
compile it, and run it while you're asleep.

>If you were a system admin, how would *you* handle it?

I'd state in my policies that running such programs were grounds for
reducing or eliminating system access privileges, and enforce that policy
in the event of a willful violation.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
(617) 864-0665  | 
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:09:55 GMT

Hank Nussbacher <HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> writes:

[...]
>My point exactly.  EFF is the one that batched together censorship
>of sexual material (free speech) along with censorship of programs
>on certain systems.  Keep listing those that censor various sexual
>newsgroups.  But it is the perogative of every computer center to
>decide what programs are or are not allowed to run on their system.
[...]

Two clarifications:

1) "EFF" did not batch this stuff together, I did. I am not an EFF
officer, agent, or spokesperson. (I am an EFF member and user on
eff.org). The posting included a disclaimer:

>Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
> =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =

but it may have been overlooked because it was as the very end. In
newer versions of the list, it is closer to the top.

2) I was not, even implicitly, critizing the schools for banning the
running of IRC and Crack. I was, implicitly, critizing the schools for
banning the code for IRC and Crack.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
banned.1992
=================
A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992. The institutions mentioned are:

Ball State U., Boston U. (2), Carnegie Mellon U., German universities,
Iowa State U. (3), Irish universities, James Madison U., Middle East
Technical U., North Dakota State U., Pennsylvania State U., Princeton,
Simon Fraser U., U. of British Columbia, U. of California at Berkeley
*, U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U. of Manitoba, U. of
Massachusetts at Boston, U. of Nebraska at Lincoln, U. of Newcastle,
U. of Ottawa, U. of Texas, U. of Toledo, U. of Toronto *, U. of
Wyoming, United Kingdom Net, Virginia Public Education Network,
Virginia Tech, Western Washington U. (& U. of Washington), Wilfrid
Laurier U. (2), Williams College **

========
* Site of an unsuccessful challenge
** College not directly involved.


=================
=================

These document(s) are 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 (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/banned.1992

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 banned.1992

-- 
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