HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cwis@cwis.unomaha.edu (Campus Wide Information Service)
Subject: Re: Chain letters?
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:51:56 GMT

kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I read the joke chain letter. I don't think it is a chain letter (any
>more than a toy car is car). Thus, I don't think the new prohibition
>even covers the specific material they want to ban.

	Hi.  Please allow me to introduce myself:  I'm the bad guy in this
scenario (i.e. the system administrator).  I believe strongly in rights to
academic freedom; to that end, I've put considerable time and effort into
making the resources of the Internet available to as many people here as
possible.  That belief is one of the reasons we maintain a full news feed
under pressure to limit what we carry (the type of pressure to which
Universities in our system have caved in).
	In light of those beliefs, believe me when I say it's not clear to me
how this situation fits into a violation of those rights.


>[...] Here is what I think they should have done:
>
> 1) Announced that this joke letter is going around
> 2) Ask people to be considerate about what they email to others
> 2) Remind people of the University's rules about harassment

	I don't even think it's necessary to go into much detail; the bottom
line is that the purpose of the letter is to enjoy as large a distribution
as possible.  Mailing it to recipients one or twenty at a time is far less
efficient than posting it to a newsgroup and effecting site-wide (or possibly
world-wide) distribution.  That is, after all, the purpose of news:  to annoy
as many people as possible at once with one's opinions.

	Content aside, since the distribution mechanism specifically chosen
was far from the optimum available, we are now looking at a resource abuse
issue.  The policy on our campus (to which users here are required to agree
before obtaining an account) specifically prohibits resource abuse.  Further,
the same policy prohibits non-academic use of the system.  We have been very
generous to date with our interpretation of what constitutes academic use;
if you can explain to me the academic purpose of that letter, I would be very
interested in hearing about it.


	All that aside, I'm not sure I see any difference between the method
you suggested and the one we used.

	Mike
---
Michael S. McMahon, System Manager             Computing & Data Communications
cwis@unomaha.edu                               University of Nebraska at Omaha
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Jim Bowery's offensive posting
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:15:25 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject:  Re: Jim Bowery's offensive posting
Date: 14 Dec 1992 10:53:52 GMT

In article <Bz8Gpw.D3B@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>Who is CAF-News, and who put them in a position of authority over all
>>news admins? I.e., who cares what CAF-News thinks news admins should be
>>doing?
>CAF-News is just newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news. It neither has,
>nor claims, authority over any news admins. Its articles, like the
>articles in news.admin.policy, are just the opinion of their authors.

Much as I hate to admit it, John has a point. ("There is no idea so good you
cannot find a fool supporting it." -- Larry Niven) Carl, the site in question
is _not_ an academic site, and so academic freedom does not apply. Further,
your position in favor of completely unrestrictred free speech is not
representative of anything outside the academic community, and is
controversial even there. Who appointed you guardian of academic freedom,
anyway?

>ANNOTATED REFERENCES

And another thing: Is there anyone else out there who finds Carl's practice of
including voluminous references in _every_ article he posts as annoying as
Hasan B Mutlu/Serdar Argic's similar practice?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "All [Windows] NT has is a lot of journalists fooled." -- Brian Button
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:25:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.193941.6961@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>As I understand both the law and ethics, if one discovers the
>commission of a crime by someone through illegal surveillance
>without probable cause, the fruits of that discovery won't be
>accepted by U.S. courts. Thus the requirements for probable
>cause and legal searches and seizures.

You have that backwards.  The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. citizens
from unlawful search _by the government_ (the Federal government
explicitly; all local jurisdictions by extensions from around the
Civil War).  Enforcement of this Amendment, through the Exclusionary
Rule you mention above, is basically at the whim of the U.S. Supreme
Court.  Presidents Reagan and Bush have both expressed opposition
to the Exclusionary rule and publicly wished to have it curtailed.

There is no equivalent protection from search from private parties.
Hence, your company may compel you to piss in a jar, but the Government
will have a harder time making such a blanket rule.  (How would the
presence of barely-perceptable THC in the cashier at the local
McDonalds affect public safety?)

>The police get a search warrant because of suspected drugs, and on
>entering the premises discover a counterfeiting press and plates,
>which turn out to belong to a resident in the household not named in
>the search warrant. As i understand it, they may prosecute, using that
>evidence.

Nope.  At the present time a search warrant must explicitly state
where the police wish to search _and_ what they expect to find.  If
they come across a counterfeit plates during a drug bust they may seize
the plates but any conviction for counterfeiting will probably be
overturned.

-- 
Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov/cs.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: wixer!bcombs@cs.utexas.edu (Brian Combs)
Subject: (none)
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:01:13 GMT

subscribe caf-talk brian combs
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 11:05:53 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair) writes:

>God protect us.  A furriner casting vile aspersions as to the freedoms we
>all know we have.  Us - the most open, most free of the societies mostly
>located in the middle of the North American continent.

And as typical of many "furriners" who meddle in US affairs, he either
does not understand or deliberately ignores the concept of private
property rights.

>Assuming John practices what he preaches, 'twill be a cold day in Hell before
>I use the facilities he wastes five lines of .sig to advertise.

Your loss.

>I think the real point here is there is no differentiation between authorized
>and unauthorized user's.  I would suspect keystroke monitoring of a paid
>account on a nixpub site such as dixie.com appears to be would be a
>violation of the contract.  As Mr De Armond points out in a previous post,

Actually I'd hope any responsable public access site's contract would
specifically address the issue of monitoring and recognize the site
admin's right to monitor.  Mine certainly does.

>I, grudgingly, agree with this although it evidences a rather feudalistic
>view of his serfs, excuse me, employees.  Disgruntled employees can
>do considerable damage to an organization and unfortunately for management,
>faster than you can fire them.

>P.S.  Would you really really would allow one of your employees to bring
>his/her own iron to work.

In *my* company, I'd not care either way but some others might.  The 
point is, it is the owner of the resource's right to set the rules
anyway he so chooses.  

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3727 sci.econ:9363 misc.jobs.misc:8235 misc.education:5213 sci.bio:4550 sci.chem:5378 sci.edu:1231 sci.math:16815 sci.physics:21054
From: ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sci.econ,misc.jobs.misc,misc.education,sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.edu,sci.math,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Faculty underclass
Date: 13 Dec 92 23:48:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: camelot.ARA.92Dec13184851
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.


I'm naturally sympathetic to attempts to improve the conditions of
scholars, in particular part time faculty. I just get uneasy when it
seems to be done piecemeal. 

Here are some questions and comments that come immediately to mind:

(1) Is it being asserted that everything is basically ok and all that needs
    to be done is to implement the specific improvements recommended
    by the AAUP, and that everything else can be left the way it is?

(2) Is there any attempt to address the practice of defining
    work to be part time if it is done by a part time employee and full
    time if done by a full time employee, even if it is the same work?
    When I taught at Brandeis, 2 courses per semester was full time work
    and in 1981-2 (my last year there) earned me $20,000, the most I have ever
    earned in my life and which was considered low by the standards of
    other universities) whereas a friend of mine teaching two huge lecture
    courses per semester in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1992 is considered
    part time and earns $7000 per annum.

(3) What about the issue which concerns all scholars working at universities,
    including part timers, namely that of job security? Assure people that if
    they do their jobs, they can keep them. This applies to part timers as
    well as to replacement leave 1 year or 1 semester jobs and to so-called
    tenure track jobs (which assume one has nothing better to do with
    6 years than invest it in a tenure decision and that one has an 
    inexhaustible supply of 6 year intervals to invest in one place after
    another).

(4) I can't help feeling that reduction of the part time work force to %15
    will mean simply firing a lot of part time workers and increasing the
    work load for the rest and for the full time workers. What are the people
    who get fired supposed to do?

Allan Adler
ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.]  Appeals court declares child pornography law unconstitutional
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:05:28 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject:  Appeals court declares child pornography law unconstitutional
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:26:18 GMT

     The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in US vs X-Citement
Video Inc., (CA No. 89-50556), that the sections of the Protection of
Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977 that deal with 
distribution, transportation, and receipt of sexually explicit 
materials are invalid on First Amendment grounds.  The court let stand the 
prohibition on the production of child pornography.

     This ruling needs to be looked at more closely, but it may help to
remove sysop worries about someone posting such material on their system
without their knowledge, or about network nodes being liable for 
material passing through them.  This is a step forward, because it was
one of the very few real legal risks a US sysop had to face, and now
it appears to be dead. Do the lawyers out there agree with this analysis?

     Producing child pornography remains illegal, which is reasonable.

					John Nagle


Source: Wall Street Journal, 17DEC92, p. B10 (Western edition)

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy
From: olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson)
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Mission Operations and Data Systems
Date: 15 Dec 1992 07:44 EST  

In article <1992Dec15.002556.28396@colorado.edu>, bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes...
>[stuff deleted]
>will have a harder time making such a blanket rule.  (How would the
>presence of barely-perceptable THC in the cashier at the local
>McDonalds affect public safety?)
>[stuff deleted]

Gee, maybe the person comes to work a bit stoned, doesn't wash his/her hands
after using the restroom and touches your food (the cashiers do set up your
fries and Coke).  You eat the food contract typhoid.  Don't believe it?  It
happened out here a couple of years ago.  Let's face it, drugs make you stupid.
When you're stupid, you forget safety precautions, no matter what job you have.

>-- 
>Bear Giles
>bear@fsl.noaa.gov/cs.colorado.edu

       __  Paul J. Olson - VAX Systems Manager & Resident Amiga Addict 
  C=  ///  Voice -     301/286-4246, 301725-5501                       
 __  ///   DECnet-    DSTL86::OLSON                                    
 \\\///    Internet - olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov                       
  \XX/     Disclaimer: Statements in my messages are wholely my own.   
  AMIGA    "[the universe originated] as a quantum fluctuation         
            of absolutely nothing." - Guth & Steinhardt                    
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,uno.cwis
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Subject: Re: Chain letters?
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 07:01:35 GMT

kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:

>>To all of the people who complained that the prohibition of
>>chain-lettering violates their academic freedom, especially in this
>>case: go get a life!

>If "chain letter" means any "letter written with an invitation to the
>recipient to pass it on to another", then letter in question might be
>a chain letter, but any rule that prohibits such chain letters to too
>broad.

>Finally, the uncertainty in the meaning of the word "chain letter",
>means that the rule is too vague.

Carl:  It's going to be difficult to discuss this until we get a clear
definition of the terms "uncertainty" and "vague".  Do you mean vague
in the sense of "vague" or simply "vague" ?

Perhaps it requires a metallic chain to be enclosed to qualify under
somebody's definition... is this the one the you want to use ?

Another vote for Olaf's sentiments...

tom

Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [isu.newsgroups, et al.]  IT KEEPS GOING AND GOING: An excerpt from the ISU Graduate Student Handbook
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,isu.newsgroups,isu.talk.politics,alt.censorship,isu.talk.usenet-policy
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:23:35 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: isu.newsgroups,isu.talk.politics,alt.censorship,isu.talk.usenet-policy
From: edsall@iastate.edu (David M Edsall)
Subject:  IT KEEPS GOING AND GOING: An excerpt from the ISU Graduate Student Handbook
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:22:23 GMT

In <1991Dec18.213403.25661@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (John Hascall) writes:

>From p38 of my copy (1985-86 -- yeah, that long ago!):
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>VII. GRADUATE STUDENT-UNIVERSITY RELATIONSHIPS


>Freedoms & Responsibilities

>Freedoms and responsibilities for graduate students are based upon the
>assumption that undertaking graduate study presupposes some intellectual
>maturity and also a measure of commitment to the academic community.
>				:
>				:
>Graduate students are free:
>		:
>		:
>   to examine and discuss questions of interest both publicly and privately.

>   to exercise the rights they enjoy if they as citizens, i.e., the freedom
>   of speech, peaceful assembly and rights of petition, without reprisal from
>   the university.   [this doesn't parse quite right?  --john]
>		:
>		:
>Graduate students have responsibility:

>   to help maintain the atmosphere of free inquiry and free expression
>   inherent to the academic community.

>   to respect the right of other members of the community to express
>   themselves freely.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>John Hascall, ISU graduate student
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: "Regents reject hate speech rule"
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:22:27 GMT

According to a UPI article in clari.news.issues:

   "The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents rejected a controversial
UW hate speech rule Friday.
   The rule banned UW students from using racial epithets because they
created a hostile learning environment.
   In September, the regents suspended the rule because it was thought
to violate the First Amendment right of free speech. Regents voted to
reject the rule 9-7.[...]"
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Re: Jim Bowery's offensive posting
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:14:51 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject:  Re: Jim Bowery's offensive posting
Date: 14 Dec 92 05:28:40 GMT

stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:

>In article <Bz7AoC.HAJ@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>CAF-News has had several articles about how much news admin should
>>enforce the charters of unmoderated newsgroup. I'm enclosing
>>references to those articles.

>Who is CAF-News, and who put them in a position of authority over all
>news admins? I.e., who cares what CAF-News thinks news admins should be
>doing?

Carl's appointed himself world-wide guardian of politically correct free
speech.  Best way to handle it is to simply put him in your kill file.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy
From: newsham@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Timothy Newsham)
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Organization: University of Engineering, College of Engineering
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:43:43 GMT

In article <mt_rrwn@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>newsham@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Timothy Newsham) writes:
>
>>its nice to have a fin standing up for our rights, all the americans
>>have grown accustom to all the attacks on our rights..
>
>The fin knows nothing of what he speaks. There is no "rights" issue
>involved here except property rights.  That is, the property I own
>and provide to my employees to use is to be used in accordance with
>my rules.  Period.  if my employees don't like the rules, they can
>work elsewhere or buy their own equipment with THEIR money.
>
>John
>-- 
>John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
>Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
>Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
>jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
>Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.

this is what he speaks about.. boycotting people like you
and people like CERT who impose fascist rules upon
others.
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Prodigy summary, anyone?
Date: 19 Dec 92 20:06:20 GMT
	<15DEC199207440917@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov> <8010@news.duke.edu>
	<1992Dec17.040342.4885@panix.com>
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

Prodigy is a cute service if you have never used a BBS before. I'd say
Prodigy is to the Internet as a Nintendo is to a '486PC. The pictures
are cute and some of the features are amusing but....there's just so
much MORE you could be doing!

  
--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               Phone   : 617-287-6448
100 Morrissey Blvd                    Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:51:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.163250.9286@news2.cis.umn.edu>, charlie@umnstat (Charles Geyer) writes:
>Not precisely accurate.  What the posting from CERT said was that it's
>not clear what the hell the law is (typical!) and God only knows what
>a court would say (figures!) so if you want to COVER YOUR ASS you better
>put such a notice in your motd if you even want to daydream about catching
>hackers.

That seems like a reasonable summary of what the notice appears to say
and aim at, but if nothing more it is a real side effect that the
recommended login banner makes all the users subject to every kind of
surveillance with no valid complaints.

If you turn the paranoia knob clockwise, what you get is a login
banner designed to get consent to any surveillance from each and every
user by using "computer security" and "intruders" as smoke & mirrors.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk