HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Faculty underclass
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:40:41 GMT

In article <ARA.92Dec13184851@camelot.ai.mit.edu> ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler) writes:

>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?

This is manifestly not the case.  But the problem is quite difficult.

>(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.

There is a problem of what is full time and what is part time, but a much
larger problem of what is the work of a full time employee, especially in
academia.  If Brandeis is the type of school I think it is, the teaching of
two courses per semester, which may have been the OFFICIAL job description,
was less than half of what a regular faculty member is expected to do.

There are relatively few part time faculty who even have the additional
duties normally done by full time faculty even at a non-research institution.

There is too much teaching by those who just do the same thing every time.
It was the belief that this is what all college professors do which led to
the attempts to have this done by computer instead.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [news.admin.policy]  Serdar Argic (was Re: Meanwhile, back at news.admin.policy)
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.policy
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:22:00 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Subject:  Serdar Argic (was Re: Meanwhile, back at news.admin.policy)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 13:43:28 GMT

In article <visser.724483820@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
|> 	He has managed to do a great deal of damage to soc.history
|> and soc.culture.europe as groups by his postings.  There is nothing
|> than can be done about it though.

If it's really as bad as you say it is (and, given what I've seen of his
postings, I have no reason to doubt you), then why hasn't the site from which
he posts shut off his posting access?

If the site from which he posts is sympathetic to his behavior (unfortunately,
there are propaganda sites that support such activities) , then why haven't
their feed sites cut them off?

He's clearly violating both the spirit and letter of the etiquette and posting
rules found in news.announce.newusers and (by and large) accepted by people. 
So why does he still have posting access?

-- 
Jonathan Kamens                                         jik@MIT.Edu
MIT Information Systems/Athena              Moderator, news.answers
-- 
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: mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair)
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:04:07 GMT

In article <j50qd7f@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>
>>Or does Jyrki want such behavior to go on in secret?
>
>Assuming a silent "i", at least his name sounds appropriate - Jerk.
>
>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.

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.

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.

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,

>                                          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.

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.
-- 
Charles Mattair		 			mattair@synercom.hounix.org
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
Never try to teach a pig to sing - you waste your time and it annoys the pig.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct
From: greeny@eff.org (J S Greenfield)
Subject: Re: "Regents reject hate speech rule"
Originator: greeny@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:24:52 GMT

In article <v-h2c_#@rpi.edu> buckmr@vccnw06.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>
>>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.[...]"
>
>And is this supposed to be a good thing???

To those of us who support free speech, it sure is.  Perhaps it represents
an end to U. Wisconsin's exploits in attempting to suppress legally
protected expression.

The original regulation, which was struck down by a federal district court,
ably demonstrated how such regulations are untenable and invariably lead
to abuse and suppression of protected expression.  (Although a U. Michigan
regulation, which was also struck down in district court, far surpassed even
the UW rule in its demontration of outrageous abuse of free thought and
expression.)

As with most censors, the proponents of these rules are well-intentioned, but
badly misguided--both with regard to their belief that suppressing speech
solves some problem, and in their belief that they can manage to suppress
*only* unprotected expression.  (As the cliche goes, the path to hell is paved
with good intentions...)


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,                            greeny@eff.org 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy,alt.fan.warlord,alt.drugs
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:28:36 GMT

: In article <15DEC199207440917@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov> olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson) writes:
: >
: >Let's face it, drugs make you stupid.
: >When you're stupid, you forget safety precautions, no matter what job you have.

Let's face it, the inability to think for yourself makes you stupid. This
brings on an unavoidable need to work for the US government - where there
is always someone who will do your thinking for you. 

Keep up the good work - it appears you have a brilliant future ahead of you
in your present job.

Bill
From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Chain letters?
Date: 12 Dec 1992 14:03:06 GMT
Organization: Fachschaft math/inf, Uni Karlsruhe, FRG
NNTP-Posting-Host: irau30.ira.uka.de

In article <1992Dec12.015703.2844@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>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;
>
>By one way of looking at it, you are being generious, but another you
>are censoring via selective enforcement (i.e. by prohibiting many
>things, but only enforcing the prohibition against the things you find
>offensive.)

I really hate flaming against Carl, but this is precisely an instance
of what I mentioned in my response to the admin's posting (sorry for
forgetting the name): not tolerating any case-by-case interpretation
of rules and blaming them as censorship in the first place. I think
this is the thing what's poisoning the climate at the side of the
defenders of academic freedom. Problems like this should be resolved
by consensus rather than sticking to the words.

>>if you can explain to me the academic purpose of that letter, I would
>>be very interested in hearing about it.
>[...]
>
>Freedom of expression is very academic. The Joint Statement on Rights
>and Freedoms of Students says:
>...
>    and free expression are indispensable to the attainment of these
>    goals."
>...
>    "The institutional control of campus facilities should not
>     be used as a device of censorship."

You may be right a hundred times and it perhaps doesn't help in a
particular case.

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       |
  "My heart is human - my blood is boiling - my brain IBM" - Mr. Roboto
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:27:30 GMT

In article <Bz6Gq2.2ro@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes: 
>In article <26Cu03elc3du00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
>grjost@uts.amdahl.com (Garrett Jost) writes: 
>>Maybe one day it will be illegal to scan e-mail.  But for now, its not!  Just
>>look at Prodigy.
>
>I suggest you get a clue, or at least a competent lawyer, if you plan
>to continue sounding like you know what you're talking about.
[...]
>Prodigy is a poor example, as they have repeatedly told people that
>they do *not* monitor e-mail.  Prodigy has other things to dislike,
>such as the fact that they censor their public-access bulletin boards
>and limit the amount of e-mail you can send, but reading your e-mail
>isn't one of them.

Apparently Prodigy has said they _cannot_ monitor e-mail.  They just
don't have the software for it (this according to a post in
comp.dcom.telecom, where the author says Prodigy told him this).  Go
figure.  

	RA

rogue@damon.ccs.northeastern.edu (The Rogue Agent)
--------------------------------------------------
The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas
of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new
research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and
ask for one.

Newsgroups: uno.cwis,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@eff.org (J S Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Chain letters?
Originator: greeny@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:58:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.180920.28593@ms.uky.edu> morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) 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.
>>
>
>I'd classify anything that says "send this to XX other people" as
>a chain letter..........

OK, Wes.  I bite.  By this standard, isn't *your* post a "chain letter?"

For that matter, isn't mine, and isn't every other post in this thread that
has excerpted this portion of the original letter?


Personally, I agree with Carl.  A toy car is not a car.  Dana Carvey's
parody of a Bush speech is not a Bush speech.  And a parody of a chain
letter is not (necessarily) a chain letter.

I certainly don't buy your rule of thumb for defining a chain letter.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,                            greeny@eff.org 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3705 comp.org.eff.talk:7598 comp.security.misc:2188 alt.privacy:2586
From: grjost@uts.amdahl.com (Garrett Jost)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Date: 12 Dec 92 21:33:26 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

oleg@gd.cs.csufresno.edu writes:

>In article <e6TZ03sdc2.200@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> grjost@uts.amdahl.com (Garrett Jost) writes:
>>oleg@gd.cs.csufresno.edu writes:
>>
>>>In article <q50qgdg@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>>>strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>The notion that people should be warned about monitoring, when it
>>>>>is done legally, is a fundamental civil liberties notion. It is
>>>>>in the same class as "fair warnings" of many other kinds.
>>>>
>>>>Damn straight.  If Jerk-eeee doesn't want his keystrokes monitored, his
>>>>option is to own his own machine.  If he is a guest on someone else's machine
>>>>or is on his employer's or institution's machine, he plays by their
>>>>rules or does not play.  Nothing difficult to understand about that.
>>>>
>>
>>>Huh? If I work for company X, X automatically has full rights to read
>>>my mail or search my home? Or maybe only if it officially warns me
>>>about this on it's front entrance? :). 
>>
>>Maybe his e-mail, but not his home.  John was saying that anything that
>>you use that is owned by your company may be monitored by them.  Hey, my
>>company did not say when I hired in that I can e-mail all my friends and
>>expect 100% privacy.  It's their computers: they can do what they want,
>>and if I don't like it, then I don't use their machines!
>>
>>They also have the right to search my office, since it's actually theirs!
>>But they don't have the right to search my apartment: it's mine.
>>

>So, since mail system is owned by state, it's Ok for state to read my paper
>mail without any reason as well ;-)

Ah, but you just brought two new factors in.  One is "state" (I'll assume
you mean the U.S. govt.), and the other is "mail system" (and I'll assume
you are talking about the U.S. Post Office).

What you just said is plainly illegal, but not because of the "right of
privacy".  There are specific laws that make that illegal.

Maybe one day it will be illegal to scan e-mail.  But for now, its not!  Just
look at Prodigy.

I'll leave on this note:  On many systems, if you mail a letter to a non-
existent user, the message gets sent back, but a copy also goes to
"postmaster".  So if you mistype a friend's e-mail address and write
he/she a very personal message, it isn't very personal anymore, is it?


-- 
Garrett

"These are my opinions and do not necessarily represent the opinions of my
employer."
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: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:02:22 GMT

In article <b+arapg@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>The 
>point is, it is the owner of the resource's right to set the rules
>anyway he so chooses.  

If someone contracts for use of computer resources, does not that person
_own_ in some sense those resources?

What you're saying implies that if I rent time on a system, develop
a commercial product, then get undercut by the owner of that system
I have no recourse because he "owns" the system I rented and everything
on it, even if I paid hard money in return for CPU cycles and mass storage?

-- 
Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov/cs.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Prodigy summary, anyone?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:03:42 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <8010@news.duke.edu> jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead) writes:

>Has anyone put together a review of Prodigy?

>I am familiar with their policies of censoring bulletin board
>discussions and restricting email, and even tried it out for a month
>myself (for free, of course).  I want to be able to give a full response
>to someone who is asking what they are about. 

>I just need an overview of all the complaints with them, and thought I'd
>see if anyone else has done something like this so I don't need to do it
>all myself ;-). 

Some guy posted a review on comp.sys.mac.comm yesterday -- go look at it
if you like.

They make you watch commercials.  Ecch.

And at present, no gateways to internet or elsewhere.  (Yes, I know they
have said they will set up gateways real soon now.)


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3750 comp.org.eff.talk:7664 comp.security.misc:2245 alt.privacy:2631
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:25:18 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <1992Dec11.193941.6961@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom (David Sternlight) writes:
>As to the substance, he raises a hard issue to which I don't know the
>answer, though I have some views in the matter. That is the issue of
>inadvertently learning something about an "innocent" when legitimately
>pursuing a suspect, and as a consequence discovering that the
>'innocent" isn't. In the present instance it's about monitoring the
>keystrokes of, say, a system intruder, and discovering the keystrokes
>of someone he's talking to as an inevitable by-product.

Actually, that wasn't the issue I was talking about.  What you talk
about is an interesting question in itself, and I don't have an answer
to that.

But what I was talking about seems much simpler to me.  It seems the
announcement is trying to get consent for all kinds of monitoring from
all users, and that "fix" for the problem of monitoring of intruders
is in my opinion worse that the problem.

//Jyrki
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3691 comp.org.eff.talk:7583 comp.security.misc:2175 alt.privacy:2579
From: oleg@gd.cs.csufresno.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:48:47 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Departement of California State University in Fresno

In article <q50qgdg@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>>The notion that people should be warned about monitoring, when it
>>is done legally, is a fundamental civil liberties notion. It is
>>in the same class as "fair warnings" of many other kinds.
>
>Damn straight.  If Jerk-eeee doesn't want his keystrokes monitored, his
>option is to own his own machine.  If he is a guest on someone else's machine
>or is on his employer's or institution's machine, he plays by their
>rules or does not play.  Nothing difficult to understand about that.
>

Huh? If I work for company X, X automatically has full rights to read
my mail or search my home? Or maybe only if it officially warns me
about this on it's front entrance? :). 

Oleg
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3726 comp.org.eff.talk:7619 comp.security.misc:2204 alt.privacy:2599 alt.security:5057
From: rob@wzv.win.tue.nl (Rob J. Nauta)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy,alt.security
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Date: 13 Dec 92 12:50:36 GMT
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Organization: None

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

->The notion that people should be warned about monitoring, when it
->is done legally, is a fundamental civil liberties notion. It is
->in the same class as "fair warnings" of many other kinds.

>Damn straight.  If Jerk-eeee doesn't want his keystrokes monitored, his
>option is to own his own machine.  If he is a guest on someone else's machine
>or is on his employer's or institution's machine, he plays by their
>rules or does not play.  Nothing difficult to understand about that.

C'mon ! you're saying that if Jyrki doesn't want his boss tapping
his phone, he should bring his own PABX and phones, or avoid using
the phone ? Get real ! The same goes for keystroke monitoring, why
do you think phone tapping is illegal, even if you own the company's
internal phone system ?

>Dave, My executive summary of the CERT announcement WOULD be "if you're
>keystroke monitoring, cover your ass by providing warnings."  Good
>advice in this interesting society we live in.

Pretty hypocrite of CERT since they've been providing tools for
the select few experts, including a version of /usr/etc/in.telnetd
that logs keystrokes since 1990. I've been surprized myself with
a few keystroke logs and the warning that 'they' had tens of megabytes
of logs on tape for all users (since telnetd runs before login, there
is no way to differentiate between users).

Rob

-- 
/-----------------------------------------------\       Never              ,==.
| Rob J. Nauta, UNIX computer security expert.  |        Apologize,       /@  |
| rob@wzv.win.tue.nl, Phone: +31-40-837549      |         Never          /_  <
| Feel free to email me for free advice         |          Explain.     =" `g'