From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.61 (Digest)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:04:02 GMT

Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 02, No. 61


----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.61

Topics:

   1-4    continue the discussion of issues surrounding alleged child
               pornography posted by a Cornell student to the Usenet
   5-8    discuss when/if it's appropriate for a sysadmin or superuser to
               cancel someone else's articles
   9-12   report computers-and-academic-freedom issues at the American
               Library Association, University of Illinois, the Akron BBS,
               and Fresno State University


Abstract:

[Week ending December 6, 1992

========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================

  [We desperately need new guest (or regular) editors, for information
   send email to kadie@eff.org.  - Carl]

Notes 1-4 continue the discussion of issues surrounding alleged child
pornography posted by a Cornell student to the Usenet.

1.  "The copy I have of the law regarding child pornography goes on for 3
*pages* regarding the recordkeeping requirements." Namely, "you have to keep
records on *all* models [... and these] have to include the legal name and
*any other names EVER used by the person in the picture. And these records
must be available to the goverment for examination at reasonable hours and
times.  And you must have a statement included with the distributed item(s)
telling where the records are and certifying that all people were of legal
age."
	<1992Nov30.190522.13734@qiclab.scn.rain.com>

2.  "I have spoken with some of those responsible for the restriction of the 
alt.*.erotica newsgroups here at Cornell. I don't believe that the _only_ 
reason these groups were cut off was because of legal investigation. I know 
that if I was responsible for the newsstand here, and was aware that it was 
being directly abused (illegally so), that the easiest and most effective way 
to deal with the problem is to simply cut off the newsgroup. Cornell is in 
NO WAY obligated to provide those newsgroups to the Cornell community, in the 
same way that it's not obligated to carry 'Playboy' in the circulars at the 
undergrad library."
	<1992Dec2.055703.10745@tc.cornell.edu>

3.  "You may have inside information, but the only public statment was that
a.b.p.e was cut simply because a single article in it was being
investigated." Now it's true that "Cornell is not obliged to respect academic
freedom. [...] But if the university desires to follow academic freedom then
it must refrain from removing resources at the merest hint of questionable
legality. Cornell is not obligated to subscribe to Playboy. But if they do
have a subscription, and there is a protest against it, academic freedom
forbids them to cancel the subscription."
	<1992Dec2.160210.5928@news.columbia.edu>

4.  Well, then, what *can* a university do to discourage students from
storing/displaying objectionable pictures?  "A rather low quota, plus a disk
that's continuously on the brink of overflowing," says one sysadmin.  "You
forgot the result from a 'du' listing on all student accounts, sorted by
size, printed out regularly, stuck on the wall at the terminal room
entrance," writes another.  "Peer pressure does wonders sometimes."
	<1fnnnsINN8ps@iraul1.ira.uka.de>

Notes 5-8 discuss when/if it's appropriate for a sysadmin or superuser to
cancel someone else's articles.

5.  "By screening articles and newsgroups the University may *increase* its
liability. (Aside: Elimination of liability should not be the University's
only goal.)"
	<Byr9Kv.7wB@cs.uiuc.edu>

6.  But how about when: "[1] Someone forges a posting in your name.
(This has happened to me.) [2] You run an anonymous contact service
and one of its users asks you to cancel a posting.  (This has happened
to me.) [3] You are the newsadmin for your site, and one of your users
posts copyrighted software to alt.sources.  (This has happened to
me.)"
	<ByuEHv.Hn7.2@cs.cmu.edu>

7.  Or: "1) An excessively large article was posted to a discussion group
(usually uuencoded GIFs or the like). 2) A site (usually fidonet) starts
reposting old articles with new IDs. 3) A forged sendsys comes out."
	<1992Dec6.104355.1025@ms.uky.edu>

8.  Perhaps these are valid exceptions, but really, "the question of
canceling other people's articles boils down to a question of
ownership and authority.  By the time something has propagated it is
outside of the sphere of authority of anyone but the individual admins
of the systems the article is stored on.  [... In] almost all other
cases I would consider someone canceling articles as a violation of
*my* domain of authority: my newsspool.  If you cancel an article that
you consider illegal, for example, it makes me want to say: 'Hey, what
are you doing?  Do you have a warrant?  Who gave you the authority to
mess with data stored on my disks?'  I mean, how would you feel if you
had some pirated software on your PC, and your neighbor were to just
walk into your home and start erasing it?  I believe that in the the
USA at least that's even more illegal than software piracy."
	<ByuG25.A5v@mtholyoke.edu>

Notes 9-12 report computers-and-academic-freedom issues at the American
Library Association, University of Illinois, the Akron BBS, and Fresno State
University.

9.  The American Library Assn.'s "Library Bill of Rights" condemns the 
exclusion of materials "because of the origin, background, or views of those
contributing to their creation[.]"  Is this the same ALA that approved
"boycotts of library materials published in Namibia and South Africa in 1987,
on the grounds that it would 'undermine the struggle for human rights in
South Africa'?"  And which felt that American publishers shouldn't ship books
to those two countries for the same reason?
	<ByK05F.MJo@ddsw1.mcs.com>

10.  Meanwhile at the University of Illinois, "Two local attorneys
discussed their experiences with the University's discipline system
and its inequities Monday at the Student Government Association's task
force on the student discipline system.  One of the attorneys said
that "the procedures have basically stayed the same" for seven or
eight years but recently "they started limiting what an attorney could
do" at a discipline hearing.  The attorney suspect it's because six
years ago a discipline committee made a decision before hearing the
case, and "attorneys were very active in exposing the fix."
	<1992Nov30.211557.1480@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

11.  "You may already know about the BBS 'sting' six months ago in Munroe
Falls, OH for "disseminating matter harmful to juveniles." Those charges were
dropped for lack of evidence. Now a trial date of 1/4/93 has been set after
new felony charges were filed, although the pretrial hearing revealed no
proof that *any* illegal content ever went out over the BBS, nor was *any*
found on it."  (A summary of the Akron BBS case follows.)
	<921202164908_71756.2116_DHG64-1@CompuServe.COM>

12.  Here's the computer use policy for Fresno State University, which insists
that all users learn to perform "password maintenance and file and directory
protection measures" on their accounts.  Not that this will secure their
accounts, since "Department faculty and staff may access others' files when
necessary for the maintenance of the computing facilities" (in fact, nowhere
in this policy does FSU mention *its* responsibility to the overall security
of its systems).  Oh, and "electronic mail and other electronic communication,
will not be used to annoy others."  (Just to be sure, FSU will punish any and
all "obscene, abusive, or threatening messages.")
	<9212011859.AA09215@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>

- Aaron Barnhart]


Contents:

Leonard Erickson 39  >[UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Matt Welsh       60  >ALERT RE POSTINGS AND COR<>CCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
                104  >
                 30  >Policies for objectionable pictures
Carl M. Kadie   178  >Libel by computer user -> liability by sysadmins?
                 17  >Canceling other people's postings
Kenneth Herron   24  >
Jurgen Botz      61  >
Mr A Barnhart    48  Forked Tongue Watch (was <> RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL etc.)
Carl M. Kadie    35  [Daily Illini] Attorneys discuss UI discipline ...
David Lehrer    207  Akron BBS trial update!
Carl M. Kadie    67  Fresno State CS dept. Policy on Computer Use


Computers and Academic Freedom News:

Managing Editor:  Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org)
Administration:   William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org)
Associate Editor: Elizabeth M. Reid (emr@eff.org)
Associate Editor: Paul Joslin (joslin@tso.uc.edu)
Associate Editor: Adam C. Gross (ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu)
Associate Editor: Mark C. Sheehan (sheehan@unixpop.ucs.indiana.edu)
Associate Editor: John F. Nixon (fnixon@sol.utc.edu)
Associate Editor: Aaron Barnhart (barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com)
Archivist:        J.S. Greenfield (greeny@eff.org)

To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note
will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup.

Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org. The
directory is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file
pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email.
For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:

send acad-freedom README

Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan, or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an
editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or
her own.

The addresses for the list are:
	comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org     - for contributions to the list
		or	caf-talk@eff.org
	listserv@eff.org    - for automated additions/deletions
                (send email with the line "help" for details.)
	caf-talk-request@eff.org    - for administrivia

        Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
        and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
------------            

------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Nov 30 15:10:10 1992
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy,comp.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Article 1--Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Date: 30 Nov 92 19:05:22 GMT

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>However, there is still an issue of consent.  If you have a photo of a
>person who gave consent to be photographed, and that person is an adult, you
>have a relatively simple situation. 

>If you have a photo of this kind and it is of a minor, I'd also have a
>signed release form from the parents if you're not one of the parents.  
>Otherwise you're just asking for trouble.

>Does anyone know if there is a potential "model release" problem here
>anyway?  If I have a signed release from a parent of, say, a 16-year old
>kid, and I then distribute the photo, can I be found liable for that
>distribution if upon turning 18 the now-adult disagrees with his parents'
>signing the release?  That is, does one have a >retroactive< right to
>control one's likeness for public distribution in this case?  Anyone know?

The copy I have of the law regarding child pornography goes on for 3 *pages*
regarding the recordkeeping requirements for anybody producing "visual
depictions". Boiled down, you have to keep records on *all* models in a
manner specified by some agency or other (ie they said regulations to be
set by XYZ dept.). The records have to include the legal name and *any other
names EVER used by the person in the picture. And these records must be
available to the goverment for examination at reasonable hours and times. 
And you must have a statement included with the dirtibuted item(s) telling
where the records are and certifying that all people were of legal age.

Note that this uses a *nasty* interpretation of the "interstate commerce"
clause of the Constitution. If *anythingused in creating them or producing
them was shipped across a state line, you must obey the rules. Cute, huh?

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Dec  2 16:57:41 1992
From: mdw@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Article 2--Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1992 05:57:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec1.234250.13131@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>   No, I think you miss the point. The school was providing a service, and
>a valued one at that. They removed access to it apparently because (solely)
>it was being investigated as having contained an illegal object at one time.
>   There was no mention of resource limitations. 
>
>   Under these conditions, the action taken by the administration was a clear
>violation of academic freedom (assuming of course that you view computers
>as applicable to AF).

I have spoken with some of those responsible for the restriction of the 
alt.*.erotica newsgroups here at Cornell. I don't believe that the _only_ 
reason these groups were cut off was because of legal investigation. I know 
that if I was responsible for the newsstand here, and was aware that it was 
being directly abused (illegally so), that the easiest and most effective way 
to deal with the problem is to simply cut off the newsgroup. Cornell is in 
NO WAY obligated to provide those newsgroups to the Cornell community, in the 
same way that it's not obligated to carry 'Playboy' in the circulars at the 
undergrad library.

Furthermore, the alt.*.erotica newsgroups aren't an educational resource.
I don't care how broadly you define Academic Freedom, this doesn't
OBLIGE Cornell to carry those groups regardless of their content or abuse
on the net. Simply because Cornell itself doesn't propagate the groups
across its subnetworks doesn't mean that those who wish to have access to
the groups (via other USENET feeds, public UNIX systems, and so forth) are
restricted from doing so. 

It seems that you liken the cutting off of the erotica groups here to the
banning of an 'obscene' book in a campus library. I think the lamp of
academia can shine on without the erotica newsgroups being made available
here. You're looking at it the wrong way: Cornell has ZERO obligation to
provide these groups. Do you scream and yell because de.fahrvegnugen isn't
available at your site? I doubt it. 

Seriously, however, I think the point is not that this is restricting access
to information. You have to look at it from the news and system admin's
point of view, which is that their systems are involved in something which
is causing quite an upset, at least with the legal authorities. I wouldn't
want to have to constantly police the actions of my users to ensure that
they wern't breaking the law. It's simply too much of a pain to deal with 
those groups in this situation, and the primary concern of a system 
administrator is the system, not the political garbage that surrounds the
information propagated on it. 

Most system admins like to "stay out of trouble." I can sympathize
with that. It's not like Cornell sent out rmgroup messages for those
groups; they're still available. Just not directly from Cornell machines.

mdw

-- 
Matt Welsh     mdw@tc.cornell.edu     Cornell Theory Center
  "We're going away now. I fed the cat."
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Dec  2 16:57:42 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc
Subject: Article 3--Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Date: 2 Dec 92 16:02:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec2.055703.10745@tc.cornell.edu> mdw@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh) writes:
>
[talking about acad freedom as it applies to Cornell and a.b.p.e]

>I have spoken with some of those responsible for the restriction of the 
>alt.*.erotica newsgroups here at Cornell. I don't believe that the _only_ 
>reason these groups were cut off was because of legal investigation.

   You may have inside information, but the only public statment was that
a.b.p.e was cut simply because a single article in it was being investigated.
There are plenty of good reasons for dropping a.b.p.e, but I see no sign that
it was anything other than the investigation the caused it's removal.

> I know 
>that if I was responsible for the newsstand here, and was aware that it was 
>being directly abused (illegally so), that the easiest and most effective way 
>to deal with the problem is to simply cut off the newsgroup. Cornell is in 
>NO WAY obligated to provide those newsgroups to the Cornell community, in the 
>same way that it's not obligated to carry 'Playboy' in the circulars at the 
>undergrad library.
>
   Cornell is not obliged to respect academic freedom. So your statment is
true. But if the university desires to follow academic freedom then it must
refrain from removing resources at the merest hint of questionable legality.
Cornell is not obligated to subscribe to Playboy. But if they do have a
subscription, and there is a protest against it, academic freedom forbids them
to cancel the subscription.

>Furthermore, the alt.*.erotica newsgroups aren't an educational resource.

   Care to defend this assertion? Do you just mean that you don't value the
groups, so they can't be valuable to anyone else? I have used a.b.p.e for
educational purposes, and I'm sure there are many other who have as well.

[...]
>
>It seems that you liken the cutting off of the erotica groups here to the
>banning of an 'obscene' book in a campus library. I think the lamp of
>academia can shine on without the erotica newsgroups being made available
>here.

   Can the lamp shine without talk.politics.*?  How about talk.rape? Since 
rape is an inherently offensive subject, could the university cut all groups
that occasionally have a rape discussion?
   Who makes and keeps the list of subjects that it is acceptable to ban?

   Do you object to comparing usenet to a library? There are plenty of
people at every site that value the net. Unless you consider it a valueless
toy, then you have to come to terms with a real group selection policy. If
you accept that usenet has value, then you should select groups the same
way a library does. Or a similar as you can get. A.b.p.e is valued at every
site that gets it. It shouldn't be removed frivilously.


> You're looking at it the wrong way: Cornell has ZERO obligation to
>provide these groups. Do you scream and yell because de.fahrvegnugen isn't
>available at your site? I doubt it. 
>
  Big difference. If you refuse de.* you are saying that you percieve a lack
of interest among your users. As long as you are willing to accept input
from the students, refusing a newgroup is not in any way a violation of
academic freedom.
  But when it comes to removing an availible resource, you have more 
perameters to consider. If the thing is unused, you can remove it. If you
cannot afford the thing, you can remove it. But you can't remove a popular
thing just because you want to.

>Seriously, however, I think the point is not that this is restricting access
>to information. You have to look at it from the news and system admin's
>point of view, which is that their systems are involved in something which
>is causing quite an upset, at least with the legal authorities.

   But this situation happens for books and music and art all the time. 
Sometimes you just have to stand up for what you believe in. If institutions
like universities won't do this, who will?
   Remember that we are not talking about anything severe like obeying a
court order. We are talking about closing a popular resourse due to the
possibility that it may have been used for a crime in the past.

> I wouldn't
>want to have to constantly police the actions of my users to ensure that
>they wern't breaking the law. It's simply too much of a pain to deal with 
>those groups in this situation, and the primary concern of a system 
>administrator is the system, not the political garbage that surrounds the
>information propagated on it. 
>
   Then I would suggest a new career choice. Work for a company of the CIA
rather than a university. Academic freedom doesn't allow you to take the
easy way out all the time.
   BTW, academic freedom also tells you that you cannot police the actions
of your users.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Dec  4 09:57:38 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Article 4--Re: Policies for objectionable pictures
Date: 4 Dec 1992 13:50:52 GMT

In article <1fh4urINNe50@smurf.smurf.sub.org> urlichs@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs) writes:
>In news.admin.policy, article <ByLCvu.K9q@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu>,
>  pac@rucs2.sunlab.cs.runet.edu (Michael Packer) writes:
>> 
>> 	I agree....  I would like to hear what other people are doing to
>> discourage students from storing/displaying objectionable pictures.
>> 
>A rather low quota, plus a disk that's continuously on the brink of
>overflowing.

Yup, and you forgot the result from a 'du' listing on all student
accounts, sorted by size, printed out regularly, stuck on the wall at
the terminal room entrance...

>Peer pressure does wonders sometimes.  ;-)

It works; I know some people who can confirm ;-)

Olaf
-- 
| Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student  |   o     | uknf@dkauni2.bitnet | old address |
| univ. of karlsruhe - germany |  _>\ _  | s_titz@ira.uka.de   | is still    |
| +49-721-60439                | (_)<(_) | praetorius@irc      | valid       |
   "Stop talkin' and start chalkin'!" - Eight Ball Deluxe
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Dec  4 17:29:40 1992
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 5--Re: Libel by computer user -> liability by sysadmins?
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 22:10:07 GMT

wales@kona.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes:

>Could someone summarize for me the current state of affairs in cases
>where the system administrators of a university computer facility are
>(or are not) held responsible for the actions of a user accused of
>making libelous statements via news or e-mail?
[...]

[A Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) FAQ. Info about the CAF
mailing lists/newsgroups is enclosing. - Carl]

=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability ===============
q: Does a University reduce its likely liability by screening Netnews
for offensive articles and newsgroups?

a: Not necessarily. By screening articles and newsgroups the
University may *increase* its liability.

(Aside: Elimination of liability should not be the University's
only goal.)

According to the book _Law of the Student Press_ (in reference student
newspapers), "Only two court cases have considered the liability
question, and in both cases the courts found that the institution was
free from liability because control was in the hands of the
students.{33,34} ... Thus, despite arguments by administrators that
they need to prevent libel, it appears that just the opposite is true:
Where administrators have not exercised control over the content of
student publications, the courts have refused to hold their schools
responsible for libel appearing in such publication. If, however,
administrators exercise the power of prior review, then the court will
also hold them and their schools liable for the contents of such
publications.  Encouraging the establishment of a clear-cut separation
between school administration and editor functions may also result in
the reduction of libel suits, for potential plaintiffs will realize
that substantial funds are beyond their reach.  ...  {33} _Mazart v.
State_ 441 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1981) {34} _Milliner v. Turner_ 436 So.2d
1300 (La. App. 1983)"

The recent _Cubby v. Compuserve_ decision also suggests that a
no-screening policy may be best. The judge wrote: "CompuServe has no
more editorial control over such a publication than does a public
library, bookstore or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for
CompuServe to examine every publication it carries for potentially
defamatory statements than it would be for any other distributor to do
so."

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
academic/student.freedoms.aaup
=================
* Student Freedoms (AAUP)

Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
U.S. statement on student academic freedom.

=================
academic/speech-codes.aaup
=================
* Speech Codes (AAUP)

On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes Expression - An
official statement of the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP)

It says in part: "On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be
banned or forbidden.  No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful
or disturbing that it may not be expressed."

=================
law/cubby-v-compuserv
=================
* Expression -- Liability -- Cubby v. Compuserv

Report of a federal district court case which said CompuServe could
not be held liable for the defamatory content because it exercised no
editorial control.

=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
* Expression -- Offensive -- Student Publications -- Misc

Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.

=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
* Netnews -- Policies on What Users Read
 
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?
 
a: Material should not be restricted just because it is offensive to
...

=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
* Netnews -- Policies on What Users Write
 
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?
 
a: Yes. Free inquiry and free expression are an important part of a
...

=================
faq/censorship-and-harassment
=================
* Censorship And Harassment
 
q: Must/should universities ban material that some find offensive
(from Netnews facilities, email, libraries, and student publications,
etc) in order to comply with antiharassment laws?
 
a: No. The federal courts have said that harassing speech is different
...

=================
caf
=================
* About the CAF mailing lists (and newsgroups)

A description of the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?

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

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup
  pub/academic/academic/speech-codes.aaup
  pub/academic/law/cubby-v-compuserv
  pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
  pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
  pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
  pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment
  pub/academic/caf

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/academic student.freedoms.aaup
send acad-freedom/academic speech-codes.aaup
send acad-freedom/law cubby-v-compuserv
send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.reading
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.writing
send acad-freedom/faq censorship-and-harassment
send acad-freedom caf
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Dec  6 13:21:43 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject: Article 6--Re: Canceling other people's postings
Date: 6 Dec 92 14:49:02 GMT

jbotz@mtholyoke.edu writes:
   b) This is the *only* valid reason for canceling someone elses post.

[1] Someone forges a posting in your name.  (This has happened to me.)
[2] You run an anonymous contact service and one of its users asks you
to cancel a posting.  (This has happened to me.)
[3] You are the newsadmin for your site, and one of your users posts
copyrighted software to alt.sources.  (This has happened to me.)
[4] {There are other examples...}

--karl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Dec  6 13:21:44 1992
From: kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron)
Subject: Article 7--Re: Canceling other people's postings
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1992 15:43:55 GMT

jbotz@mtholyoke.edu writes:
>b) This is the *only* valid reason for canceling someone elses post.

1)      An excessively large article was posted to a discussion group  
	(usually uuencoded GIFs or the like).                          
2)      A site (usually fidonet) starts reposting old articles with new
	IDs.                                                           
3)      A forged sendsys comes out.                                    

The vast majority of feedback on my actions has always been positive.

Let me suggest that jbotz is being a bit naive.  Screwups sometimes happen
and fast action by the right person can do the net a lot of good.
-- 
Kenneth Herron                                              kherron@ms.uky.edu
University of Kentucky                                         +1 606 257 2975
Dept. of Mathematics     "Your ball goes over them, it sails off the edge into
a huge cauldren of fire-breathing dragons."  "And they call this a par three?"
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Dec  6 13:21:45 1992
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Article 8--Re: Canceling other people's postings
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1992 15:22:53 GMT

In article <Byu0sG.9nD@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <BytKE2.MGw@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec4.211934.8997@pica.army.mil> drears@claudius.pica.army.mil (Dennis G Rears ) writes:
>>>I am the moderator for comp.society.privacy and recently found
>>>a posting that I did not approve.
>>
>>This is the *only* valid reason for canceling
>>someone elses post.
>
>Ooh ... gonna get yourself in trouble there, I bet. :-)
>
>Suppose I find that someone else has forged an article in my name?

8-)  Ok, I'll back off from that claim a bit.  I think forgeries are
better handled with a follow-up exposing the forgery as such, but I
certainly wouldn't flame someone for canceling a post that was forged
in their name.  However, canceling a forgery in *your* name isn't really
canceling someone else's article!  It's canceling an article that was
purportedly from you anyway, so it's not really opposed to what I was
getting at when I stated that the only time that it's appropriate for
a third party to cancel a post is in the case of a moderator canceling
unapproved articles to his/her group.

Another reader sent me mail suggesting that it is appropriate to
cancel "illegal" posts, but there I would beg to differ...  what's
illegal, and where?  This horse has been beaten to death just recently
over the "pedophilia" posts in a.b.p.e, and I think that regardless of
one's individial position in this issue, the issue needs to be addressed
in a more general way and not on a case-by-case basis by self-appointed
net.police canceling posts.

Mainly the question of canceling other people's articles boils down to
a question of ownership and authority.  By the time something has
propagated it is outside of the sphere of authority of anyone but the
individual admins of the systems the article is stored on.  The rest
is net.convention and the cooperative spirit of the net: Since the
article is owned by the author, the author has somewhat of an implicit
license to cancel the article, and moderators have an implicit license
over what happens in the group which they moderate.  These are things
that I agreed to by joining my system to the net... however in almost
all other cases I would consider someone canceling articles as a
violation of *my* domain of authority: my newsspool.  If you cancel an
article that you consider illegal, for example, it makes me want to
say: "Hey, what are you doing?  Do you have a warrant?  Who gave you
the authority to mess with data stored on my disks?"  I mean, how would
you feel if you had some pirated software on your PC, and your neighbor
were to just walk into your home and start erasing it?  I believe that in
the the USA at least that's even more illegal than software piracy.

--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Nov 30 19:37:13 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Mr. Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Article 9--Forked Tongue Watch (was Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL etc.)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 00:03:13 GMT

:
:The American Library Association declares as a matter of firm
:principle that it is the responsibility of every library to have a
:clearly defined materials selection policy in written form which
:reflects the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS, and which is approved by the
:appropriate governing authority.
:
:The LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS states in Article I that
:"Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views
:of those contributing to their creation," and in Article II, that "Materials
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal
:disapproval."  

Ho now, wasn't this the same ALA voting body that gave its imprimatur
to boycotts of library materials published in Namibia and South Africa
in 1987, on the grounds that it would "undermine the struggle for human
rights in South Africa"?  (The proceedings indicated the ALA felt much
the same way about shipping American educational and library materials
into these countries.)

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available in my personal library. Access 
information follows.)

=================
Hentoff, Nat
=================

_Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee: How the Left and Right
Relentlessly Censor Each Other_, Harper Collins, 1992, chap. 3.



If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

but you won't find Hentoff's book in it.  And unless you live
in Evanston, Illinois, you can't browse my copy, either.

So I suggest you go to a store and purchase the book while it's
still in hardcover and you can show it off in *your* personal library.

Aaron


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Nov 30 16:33:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 10--[Daily Illini] Attorneys discuss UI discipline ...
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 21:15:57 GMT

Here is some more about the state of due process at U. of Illinois.
The 1992/November/24 U. of Illinois student newspaper has an article
that says in part:

>Attorneys discuss UI discipline at SGA task force meeting.
>News story by Richard Stock, Student-affairs reporter. pg. 3
>
>Two local attorneys discussed their experiences with the University's 
>discipline system and its inequities Monday at the Student Government 
>Association's task force on the student discipline system.
[...]
>Silverman said "the procedures have basically stayed the same" for seven
>or eight years but recently "they started limiting what an attorney could
>do" at a discipline hearing.
>Savage said the role attorneys play has been curbed because six years ago
>a discipline committee made a decision before hearing the case, and "attorneys
>were very active in exposing the fix."

To access the full item via gopher, try typing:
     gopher -p "1/UI/DI" gopher.cso.uiuc.edu 70
Then choose:
     Latest Issue (1992/November/24)/
     Attorneys discuss UI discipline at SGA task force meeting.

Just for reference, the "bookmark" for this gopher item is:
     Name=Attorneys discuss UI discipline at SGA task force meeting.
     Type=0
     Port=70
     Path=0/UI/DI/Latest/task.txt
     Host=harpoon.cso.uiuc.edu
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Dec  2 11:57:05 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: 71756.2116@compuserve.com (David Lehrer)
Subject: Article 11--Akron BBS trial update!
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1992 16:49:08 GMT

Akron BBS trial update: Dangerous precedents in sysop prosecution

You may already know about the BBS 'sting' six months ago in Munroe
Falls, OH for "disseminating matter harmful to juveniles." Those
charges were dropped for lack of evidence. Now a trial date of
1/4/93 has been set after new felony charges were filed, although
the pretrial hearing revealed no proof that *any* illegal content
ever went out over the BBS, nor was *any* found on it.

For those unfamiliar with the case, here's a brief summary to date.
In May 1992 someone told Munroe Falls police they *thought* minors
could have been getting access to adult materials over the AKRON
ANOMALY BBS. Police began a 2-month investigation. They found a
small number of adult files in the non-adult area.

The sysop says he made a clerical error, causing those files to be
overlooked. Normally adult files were moved to a limited-access
area with proof of age required (i.e. photostat of a drivers
license).

Police had no proof that any minor had actually accessed those
files so police logged onto the BBS using a fictitious account,
started a download, and borrowed a 15-year old boy just long enough
to press the return key. The boy had no knowledge of what was going
on.

Police then obtained a search warrant and seized Lehrer's BBS
system. Eleven days later police arrested and charged sysop Mark
Lehrer with "disseminating matter harmful to juveniles," a
misdemeanor usually used on bookstore owners who sell the wrong
book to a minor. However, since the case involved a computer,
police added a *felony* charge of "possession of criminal tools"
(i.e. "one computer system").

Note that "criminal tool" statutes were originally intended for
specialized tools such as burglar's tools or hacking paraphenalia
used by criminal 'specialists'. The word "tool" implies deliberate
use to commit a crime, whereas the evidence shows (at most) an
oversight. This raises the Constitutional issue of equal protection
under the law (14'th Amendment). Why should a computer hobbyist be
charged  with a felony when anyone else would be charged with a
misdemeanor?

At the pretrial hearing, the judge warned the prosecutor that
they'd need "a lot more evidence than this" to convict. However the
judge allowed the case to be referred to a Summit County grand
jury, though there was no proof the sysop had actually
"disseminated", or even intended to disseminate any adult material 
"recklessly, with knowledge of its character or content", as the
statute requires. Indeed, the sysop had a long history of
*removing* such content from the non-adult area whenever he became
aware of it. This came out at the hearing.

The prosecution then went on a fishing expedition. According to the
Cleveland Plain Dealer (7/21/92)

    "[Police chief] Stahl said computer experts with the Ohio
Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation are reviewing
the hundreds of computer files seized from Lehrer's home. Stahl 
said it's possible that some of the games and movies are being
accessed in violation of copyright laws."

Obviously the police believe they have carte blanche to search
unrelated personal files, simply by lumping all the floppies and
files in with the computer as a "criminal tool." That raises
Constitutional issues of whether the search and seizure was legal.
That's a precedent which, if not challenged, has far-reaching
implications for *every* computer owner.

Also, BBS access was *not* sold for money, as the Cleveland Plain
Dealer reports. The BBS wasn't a business, but rather a free
community service, running on Lehrer's own computer, although extra
time on the system could be had for a donation to help offset some
of the operating costs. 98% of data on the BBS consists of
shareware programs, utilities, E-mail, etc.

The police chief also stated:

    "I'm not saying it's obscene because I'm not getting into that
battle, but it's certainly not appropriate for kids, especially
without parental permission," Stahl said.

Note the police chief's admission that obscenity wasn't an issue at
the time the warrant was issued.


Here the case *radically* changes direction. The charges above were
dropped. However, while searching the 600 floppy disks seized along
with the BBS, police found five picture files they think *could* be
depictions of borderline underage women; although poor picture
quality makes it difficult to tell.

The sysop had *removed* these unsolicited files from the BBS hard
drive after a user uploaded them. However the sysop didn't think to
destroy the floppy disk backup, which was tossed into a cardboard
box with hundreds of others. This backup was made before he erased
the files off the hard drive.

The prosecution, lacking any other charges that would stick, is
using these several floppy disks to charge the sysop with two new
second-degree felonies, "Pandering Obscenity Involving A Minor",
and "Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving A Minor" (i.e. 
kiddie porn, prison sentence of up to 25 years).

The prosecution produced no evidence the files were ever
"pandered". There's no solid expert testimony that the pictures
depict minors. All they've got is the opinion of a local
pediatrician.
All five pictures have such poor resolution that there's no way to
tell for sure to what extent makeup or retouching was used. A
digitized image doesn't have the fine shadings or dot density of a
photograph, which means there's very little detail on which to base
an expert opinion. The digitization process also modifies and
distorts the image during compression.

The prosecutor has offered to plea-bargain these charges down to
"possession" of child porn, a 4'th degree felony sex crime
punishable by one year in prison. The sysop refuses to plead guilty
to a sex crime. Mark Lehrer had discarded the images for which the
City of Munroe Falls adamantly demands a felony conviction. This
means the first "pandering" case involving a BBS is going to trial
in *one* month, Jan 4th.

The child porn statutes named in the charges contain a special
exemption for libraries, as does the original "dissemination to
juveniles" statute (ORC # 2907.321 & 2). The exemption presumably
includes public and privately owned libraries available to the
public, and their disk collections. This protects library owners
when an adult item is misplaced or loaned to a minor. (i.e. 8 year
olds can rent R-rated movies from a public library).

Yet although this sysop was running a file library larger than a
small public library, he did not receive equal protection under the
law, as guaranteed by the 14'th Amendment. Neither will any other
BBS, if this becomes precedent. The 'library  defense' was allowed
for large systems in Cubby versus CompuServe, based on a previous
obscenity case (Smith vs. California), in which the Supreme Court
ruled it generally unconstitutional to hold bookstore owners liable
for content, because that would place an undue burden on bookstores
to review every book they carry, thereby 'chilling' the
distribution of books and infringing the First Amendment.

If the sysop beats the bogus "pandering" charge, there's still
"possession", even though he was *totally unaware* of what was on
an old backup floppy, unsolicited in the first place, found unused
in a cardboard box. "Possession" does not require knowledge that
the person depicted is underage. The law presumes anyone in
possession of such files must be a pedophile. The framers of the
law never anticipated sysops,or that a sysop would routinely be
receiving over 10,000 files from over 1,000 users.

The case could set a far ranging statewide and nationwide precedent
whether or not the sysop is innocent or guilty, since he and his
family might lack the funds to fight this--after battling to get
this far.

These kinds of issues are normally resolved in the higher courts--
and *need* to be resolved, lest this becomes commonplace anytime
the police or a prosecutor want to intimidate a BBS, snoop through
users' electronic mail, or "just appropriate someone's computer for
their own use."

You, the reader, probably know a sysop like Mark Lehrer. You and
your family have probably enjoyed the benefits of BBS'ing. You may
even have put one over on a busy sysop now and then.

In this case; the sysop is a sober and responsible college student,
studying computer science and working to put himself through
school. He kept his board a lot cleaner than could be reasonably 
expected, so much so that the prosecution can find very little to
fault him for.


*Important*  Please consider a small contribution to ensure a fair
trial and precedent, with standards of evidence upheld, so that
mere possession of a computer is not grounds for a witch hunt.

These issues must not be decided by the tactics of a 'war of
attrition'; *however far* in the court system this needs to go. For
this reason, an independent, legal defense trust fund has been set
up by concerned area computer users, CPA's, attorneys,etc.

     Mark Lehrer First Amendment Legal Defense Fund
                         (or just:  MLFALDF)
     Lockbox No. 901287
     Cleveland, OH  44190-1287

*All* unused defense funds go to the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, a nonprofit, 501c3 organization, to defend BBS's and
First Amendment rights.

Help get the word out. If you're not sure about all this, ask your
local sysops what this precedent could mean, who the EFF is--and
ask them to keep you informed of further developments in this case. 
Please copy this file and send it to whoever may be interested. 
This case *needs* to be watchdogged.

Please send any questions, ideas or comments directly to the sysop:

Mark Lehrer
CompuServe: 71756,2116   InterNet: 71756.2116@compuserve.com
Modem: (216) 688-6383    USPO: P.O. Box 275           
                               Munroe Falls, OH  44262



------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Dec  1 13:59:17 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 12--Fresno State CS dept. Policy on Computer Use
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1992 06:59:04 GMT

 
       Department of Computer Science Policy on Computer Use
                California State University, Fresno
                       August 1992

The Department of Computer Science and California State University, Fresno
provide computing resources to students, faculty and staff in support
of programs of the Department.  Computing resources includes local
area networks and connections to other computer networks.

All students, faculty, and staff are responsible for seeing that
computing resources are used in an effective, ethical, and
lawful manner.

The Department disclaims responsibility for the loss of data or
interference with files resulting from its efforts to maintain the
privacy and security of the Department's computer facilities.
 
The following policies relate to the use of Departmental facilities.
These policies are in addition to existing University policies on
plagiarism and appropriate use of facilities.
 
1. Computer facilities are owned by the University or Department
and are to be used for Department-related activities only. Facilities
will not be used for private consulting, other commercial purposes,
or the installation of fraudulently or illegally obtained software or
data.
 
2. An account assigned to an individual by the Department must not
be used by others. The individual is responsible for the proper use of
the account, including password protection.  The individual must
take all reasonable precautions, including password maintenance and
file and directory protection measures, to prevent use of their
account by unauthorized persons.
 
3. Programs and files are confidential unless they have explicitly
been made available to other authorized users.  Copying, renaming,
changing, examining, or deleting files belonging to someone else is
against policy. Department faculty and staff may access others' files
when necessary for the maintenance of the computing facilities. When
preforming maintenance, however, every effort will be made to insure
the privacy of users' files.
 
4. Departmental computing resources, including electronic mail and
other electronic communication, will not be used to annoy others.  It
is against policy to send obscene, abusive, or threatening messages.
 
5. Attempts to bypass standard procedures are not allowed. This
includes, but is not limited to,  attempts to discover another user's
password, taking resources from other users, distribution or execution
of a program that damages another user's files or Departmental
computing resources, and  gaining access to resources for which proper
authorization has not been given.
 
6. Physical tampering with departmental resources is not allowed.
 
7. Users will not deliberately attempt to degrade system performance or
to deprive authorized users access to Departmental computing resources.
 
Failure to comply with the above guidelines shall constitute a violation
of Department policy and will subject the violator to disciplinary or
legal action by the Department or University. In addition, the
University may require restitution for any use of computing resources
that is in violation of the above guidelines.
 
Users of Departmental computing resources are also subject to local,
state, and federal laws.




------------------------------

End of Computers and Academic Freedom News (Digest)
************************************
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.good.news