HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Sysadmin for a Day, was Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:32:55 GMT
    <1992Oct2.170410.12431@ms.uky.edu> <1992Oct2.220546.5271@eff.org>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky

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.
>
>Well, a given piece of code can also be *copied from another machine*,
>compiled, executed, and deleted in an hour. Also, in the case of
>Crack, the passwd and .rhosts files can be copied to other machines in
>a matter of minutes with almost no trace. 

This is true, but that implies that Crack isn't running on the machine
in the first place, doesn't it?

>So I'm not sure that trying
>to control source code is effective.

I didn't ask about its effectiveness, I asked how you would handle it.
Some sysadmins are bluntly told, "Keep Crack/IRC/MUD code off our sys-
tems"; how should they handle it?  Let's hear some concrete ideas!

>In the case of IRC, I'd likely notice if it was running again and
>using up needed resources. In the case of Crack, ??.

"Cleaning up after the fact" != "effective resource management".

--Wes

-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.news, et al.]  EFF announces gopher access to their online documents
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:31:42 GMT

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.news,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.infosystems.gopher
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject:  EFF announces gopher access to their online documents
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:18:10 GMT

+=========+==================================================+==============+
|  F.Y.I. | Newsnote from the Electronic Frontier Foundation | Oct 6, 1992  |
+=========+==================================================+==============+

    ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION OPENS GOPHER SERVER TO THE INTERNET

The Electronic Frontier Foundation announced today that they now offer
access to their online document library via the Internet Gopher protocol,
developed at the University of Minnesota.  Gopher access joins WAIS,
electronic mail service, and anonymous ftp as an electronic means of
access to EFF documents.

Gopher clients are available for Mac, NeXT, GNU Emacs, X11, VM/CMS, VMS,
and curses interfaces.  Many of these are available for anonymous ftp from
boombox.micro.umn.edu in pub/gopher.  Those without clients can telnet to
consultant.micro.umn.edu and login as "gopher" to try it out.  (EFF's
Gopher server is listed under "Other Gopher and Information Servers".)

The EFF Gopher service is available on gopher.eff.org, port 70.  WAIS
access is available on wais.eff.org, port 210.  Anonymous ftp access to
the document library is available on ftp.eff.org, in directory pub/EFF.
Mail service is handled through archive-server@eff.org; use "index eff"
for a list of documents and document sections.

For more information on the EFF or online access to our documents, send
electronic or postal mail to the addresses below.

+=====+=======================================================+=============+
| EFF | 155 Second Street, Cambridge MA 02141 +1 617 864 0665 | eff@eff.org |
+=====+=======================================================+=============+
--
Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
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 15:13:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.141004.9029@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>>10. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U
>>Wyoming.  I provided access to this software to other users.  Upon
>>receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all
>>users who had used IRC.  In order to get their accounts back, the
>
>You may think this a violation of academic freedom.  I don't.  If the
>situation arose here, I would have no choice but to act quite similarly.

Really? What would compel you to remove access for all users who had ever
used IRC?

>Think about it.  We have students with homework assignments due.  They
>risk failing their course if they don't complete them on time.  But
>when they try they find that all ports on the terminal server are tied
>up by users on IRC.  Now tell me whose rights are being abused.

Couldn't this problem be solved be removing IRC itself rather than by
removing users' access?



--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 
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: amdunn@mongrel.UUCP (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 02:16:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>The right to bare arms is not (usually) part of academic freedom.

True.  So wear a long-sleeved shirt and nobody will mind.  Just ask
Gwen Jacob.
-- 
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
:  Andy Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.uucp)  ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn)   :
:  "AT&T thinks Usenet is an Underground organization" - are we really?   :
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
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 16:42:36 GMT

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

[...]
>Well, we have to keep this in perspective. THis isn't a formal,
>take-it-to-court sort of policy anyway. I agree with the poster who
>said that trying to make rules to cover every detail is oppressive. 
[...]

Creating rules on the fly can also be oppresive.

'In the Federalist #84 Alexander Hamilton argued that "the creation of
crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the
subjecting of men `to punishment for thing which, when they were done,
were breaches of no law" has been "in all ages" one of "the favorite
and more formidable instruments of tyranny."
 - Edward J. Erler in _Criminal Justice and the Surpeme Court_, editted
   by Leonard W. Levy, et al.

- Carl
-- 
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
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: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:28:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.162504.6834@netcom.com>, barry@netcom (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>Does the Constitution give a monopoly of interpretation to the Supreme Court?
>
>	Pragmatically speaking, yes.

>	The Constitution does not give this right to the Court
>explicitly, but the Court asserted the right back in the 1830s, and has
>hung onto it.

That seems like a "no" to me.

>	Every citizen, of course, has the right to make their own
>interpretation of what the Constitution really says, but only the
>opinion of the Supreme Court has any legal weight.

I hope you recognize my right to interpret it as well, even though I'm
not a citizen of USA ;-).

One example I can think of where the Constitution is interpreted with
legal weight by someone else than the Supreme Court is when a jury
reaches a verdict of not guilty based on the accused being accused on
an unconstitutional law (as interpreted by the jury).

//Jyrki
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3054 comp.org.eff.talk:6260 comp.admin.policy:1206 alt.censorship:7848 soc.college:4137
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
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 13:55:17 GMT
    <1992Oct2.170410.12431@ms.uky.edu> 
    <1992Oct4.001356.14962@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

By the way, you need to fix your news software; it doesn't give a proper
return address......8)

>morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>>If the source code were available in hardcopy only, would you be satisfied?
>
>No.  
>

Why not?  If you're interested in the approach, why wouldn't the
program (and its documentation) be enough?  

>>If you were a system admin, how would *you* handle it?
>
>Well, first off, I wouldn't look arround in people's accounts unless
>they were readable.

Whoa!  There are those who argue that a sysadmin shouldn't look ANYWHERE,
whether or not the user has left their files readable......

>Secondly, if I found a possibly offensive program I would ask the
>owner why he had it and inform him that running it, except under
>limited and controlled circumstances is prohibited.  

OK, my "limited and controlled circumstances" are "not on our systems".
If he wants to port it to a PC, or if he has access to other systems on
campus, I'm not going to stop them; in fact, I couldn't!

(There are public-access NeXTs and PCs across this campus; some of those
 PCs are even running Unix.  I don't manage those systems, so I can't com-
 ment on their policies)

>Then, depending on the difficulty, I might write a watchdog program or
>two to look for the programs being run.

Oh, but I've also been told that such "watchdogs" are improper.

>After all, do you really object if someone is fooling arround with
>IRC, debugging it and enhancing it as long as a lot of people aren't
>using it?  

With our resources, we don't have that luxury.  I'd also point out
that inexperienced "tweaking" of network code (such as IRC) can wreak
havoc on one's network (that happened at this site, although IRC was
not involved).

>Or if someone is going through the Crack source code to
>learn more about security?

You infer here that the user is only "going through the ... code"; why
can't they do it with hardcopy?

--Wes

-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
From: 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: System security versus censorship
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:06:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.083815.10045@bsu-ucs.uucp>, 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
> 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.

Reading that over, I suspectet that an ambiguity in the last line might invite
and interpretation I did not intend.  I'm not saying that censorship is a
creative act but that the decision is.  Of course, I suppose that some might
argue the former as well, but I leave that for another day.

Herb Stahlke
Ball State University
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:42:51 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston


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" 
    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.


(*ie we would ban pirated software)


--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd                     Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Let's try a different tack......
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:15:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.152257.20361@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M.
Kadie) writes:

>    "The institution has a right, on the other hand, to reasonably
>    regulate this expression as to time, place, and manner of
>    expression so as to prevent disruption of the educationally
>    process or interference with the rights of others, and prevent
>    placing persons or property in danger."
>                - constraints.constitutional

rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

> This would seem to provide an adequate basis for reasonable restrictions
> on what can be placed in '.plan'.

If by "reasonable" you mean banning, for example, a very long .plan, I
agree. If you mean content restrictions, one what grounds? No person
or property was put in danger. The educational process was not
disrupted. If a right was interfered with, which right?

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
law/cohen-v-california.3
=================
Here are excerpts from several Supreme Court decisions inclusing
_Cohen v. Calfiornia_. They say that offensive public expression is
protected if those offended can "effectively avoid further bombardment
of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes."

=================
law/constraints.constitutional
=================
Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College
Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D.
Gehring.  (College Administration Publication, 1985).  Discusses the
constitutional constraints on public universities including the
requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable
searches and seizures, due process, specific rules.

=================
law/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.

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

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/law/cohen-v-california.3
  pub/academic/law/constraints.constitutional
  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/law cohen-v-california.3
send acad-freedom/law constraints.constitutional
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 =
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3055 comp.admin.policy:1208 alt.censorship:7849
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
Subject: Let's try a different tack......
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:18:25 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

I've seen dozens of situations described in these newsgroups; the concept
of "academic freedom" is usually used in defense of the "oppressed party".
In fact, "academic freedom" has been used as a defense for almost every
questioned action.  I've often asserted that academic freedom is not a
"blank check", but other have asserted that it is.

We have some very good definitions of academic freedom, but we have very
few definitions of its limitations.  We've discussed the boundaries, but
we've never really reached a consensus.

Therefore, my question is rather elemental:

	What are the limitations of "academic freedom"?


-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:06:37 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.

This seems a slender thread on which to hang a policy.


--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 
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.tv.ren-n-stimpy] NICK=La. Tech=CENSORSHIP
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.tv.ren-n-stimpy
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 01:25:24 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: alt.tv.ren-n-stimpy
From: ST32373@VM.CC.LATECH.EDU
Subject: NICK=La. Tech=CENSORSHIP
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 10:10:38 CST

 In keeping with the spirit of censorship, La Tech has turned off all the stude
nts e-mail functions for Internet. This is the only way I can respond to those
of you who said they would send me VCR tapes. I STILL WANT THEM! Just give me a
 voice number or something where we can work out details.
 
 P.S. What is with this spirit of "family values" (READ:Censorship) that is swe
eping the nation? Not only has Tech turned off all the students mailfeed, I hav
e heard evidence that their are individuals reading students mail/posts/NNR sub
scriptions. I have also heard that some students NNR readings are used against
them. I have heard of a guy who was RAKED over the coals for reading some of th
e more "offbeat" shall we say, newsgroups. I know this is kind of out of place
but feel free to complain to Tech. Maybe they will turn OUR mail back on.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2957 comp.org.eff.talk:6126 comp.admin.policy:1136 alt.censorship:7767 soc.college:4064
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
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 20:07:43 GMT
	<BvELx1.A4J@unix.amherst.edu>
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

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?"  Users
>would be amply warned in advance, and there would not be no need even
>for any restrictions based on the location of such material.
  Perfectly ok. We're really not trying to censor people. As I told
someone in a private message, I'm the sysadm here and I use finger
heavily, with the option to view the .plan, because most users put
information I need in there. The few users I have asked to change
their .plan's have been younger students who were quite embarassed to
realize that their message was seen by a fewmale sysop!
  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.

--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU
100 Morrissy Blvd                     Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Scanners
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 08:40:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.214514.24387@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>What is the legal status of owning a 'scanner' in the US today?

Well, if you scan in pictures from playboy and put them up on your BBS
you will get sued by Playboy and, as is reported for the recent suit
against the Event Horizons BBS, you will have to settle out of court
for $500,000.   (And you thought the issue of copyrighted GIFs wasn't
a serious one.)

Oh, you meant radio scanners.  :-)

This is an ironic issue.  We already have the technology to secure our
radio communications.  Chips to do it could be mass produced and put
cheaply in all private radio units.  I think the only thing standing in the
way is the NSA/FBI/etc.'s fear of ubiquitous encryption.  The EFF is fighting
this fear.

I guess PKP could also be interefering, by wanting too much money.  Who
knows.  (I think they don't actually want that much, but people are
reluctant to pay anything.)

At this point the concept of scanners becomes moot.  You won't be
able to hear conversations people want secret regardless.  Though
one-to-selected-but-large-group transmissions will be harder to secure
because too many people have to know the code.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college