From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.59 1/2 (Digest)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:03:13 GMT

Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 02, No. 59


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

From: barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.59

Topics:

   1-5    shed new light and offer new views on the ongoing child-
               porn/Usenet controversy at Cornell University
   6      reminds us that Cornell is certainly not the only school
               restricting access to Usenet
   7-8    raise the question: How accountable must computing centers at
               state-run universities be to the taxpayers
   9-12   list computing policies at four universities


Abstract:

[Week ending November 29, 1992

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

Notes 1-5 shed new light and offer new views on the ongoing
child-porn/Usenet controversy at Cornell University.

1.  A student was arrested, and his dorm searched, by the FBI in connection
with possible illegal materials he had been posting to alt.binaries.pictures.
erotica.  "According to the Cornell Daily Sun report I read, his neighbours
were altogether unsurprised that he was caught for this particular crime. I
have found Stuart Lynn to not be an overly zealous system administrator. His
reaction to the virus (where again students were arrested) and to this
incidence (which involves the Feds) was exactly what was warranted."
	<1992Nov24.125748.19653@shaman.com>

2.  "Access to alt.binaries.pictures.* is not a fundamental human right," says
one observer.  Carl Kadie responds: "I hope Cornell decision was based on
competent legal advice rather than the rationale you suggest. Your rationale
is too broad; it could be used to justify almost any ban of almost any
material."  (With annotated references.)
	<By9Iq6.313@cs.uiuc.edu>

3.  To plead academic freedom when trying to save a newsgroup "ignores the
common decision problem when demands for academic resources far outstrip the
funds available for such resources."  The decision not to carry alt.*.*.
erotica may simply reflect the prudent "allocation of funds."
	<1992Nov25.210004.12913@netcom.com>

4.  But even if that were so, Carl responds, the decision to discontinue
"challenged materials" (such as controversial newsgroups) should probably
be the outcome of formal due process.  With that, Carl lists the American
Library Association's statement on challenged materials, an interpretation
of the ALA's "Library Bill of Rights."
	<ByG6G1.7LC@cs.uiuc.edu>

5.  On a related note, this note quotes relevant passages from the U.S.
Criminal Code that explains exactly what jurisprudence understands
"child pornography" to be.
	<1992Nov29.222815.5416@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
	
Note 6 reminds us that Cornell is certainly not the only school
restricting access to Usenet.

6.  "Our Computation Center [at Iowa State University] has developed a
policy to restrict access to Usenet. It basically sets up a three tier
system: Focused access, which eliminates all alt. and rec. groups;
Standard access, which eliminates alt.personals.bondage, alt.sex,
alt.sex.bestiality ,alt.sex.bondage, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica,
alt.sex.motss ,alt.sex.pictures ,alt.sex.pictures.d
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d; and Full access, which allows all
groups."  Guess which type of access the students get!
	<ESAGE.92Nov29170046@occs.cs.oberlin.edu>

Notes 7-8 raise the question: How accountable must computing centers
at state-run universities be to the taxpayers?

7.  From a Ball State sysadmin: "My concern is with the perception of some in
our university administration that most of what the cluster is used for is
email among students, largely for social purposes, and that that use is not
academic and should not be supported. [...] To keep [this issue] continually
to the fore is paranoid, but to ignore it completely is reckless.
	<1992Nov25.084901.12342@bsu-ucs>

8.  From another Ball State employee: "I, and many others, have  benefited
greatly as a result - the use of EMail results in a  terrific amount of idea
exchange, etc. The net result of this is that there is more computer literacy
on  this campus than any other campus I have ever seen."  And interestingly,
"in 99% of the  complaints I have heard, the user wants special privileges
ABOVE  AND BEYOND the normal privs granted."  Which is not to say that the
legislature doesn't have a "valid point," since "they DO grant the funding."
	<3205@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>

Notes 9-12 list computing policies at four universities.

9.  Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, where users may be punished for "Using
any computer facility to violate the Grounds for Disciplinary Action 
(e.g. harassment, fraud, falsifying information, academic dishonesty, etc.)
Note:  Harassment is that which is annoying or threatening to the person
receiving the message or action"!  
	<9211292124.AA01302@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>

10.  Louisiana Tech, which declares that "Fraudulent, harassing or obscene
messages and/or other materials are not to be sent or stored." Just in case
you do try storing them, "Computer Center personnel may access others' files
when necessary for the maintenance of central computer systems [... and] if
violations are discovered, they will be reported immediately to the
appropriate Vice President."  Also, the Robert Morrises of the South are not
allowed to "deliberately attempt to degrade the performance of a computer
system." 
	<9211292125.AA01310@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>

11.  This is a very long and thorough policy on computing at the University of
North Texas which establishes a committee, three titles, and an ombudsman's
position for computing, defines the roles of everybody in the academic
community w.r.t. computing, establishes sanctions for faculty, staff, and
students who don't comply, and even offers official definitions of terms such
as "workstation" and "computer installation."
	<9211292125.AA01321@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>

12.  The University of Nebraska (Omaha), which decrees that "No one should
attempt to encroach on others' use of the facilities or deprive them of
resources."  And that "student, faculty and staff accounts, issued for
legitimate classroom or office work, must not be used for private consulting
and/or personal financial gain."  Other than that, have fun.
	<9211292126.AA01324@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
	
- Aaron Barnhart]


Contents:

jiro@shaman.com  37  >ALERT RE POSTINGS AND COR<>CCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Carl M. Kadie    70  >
                 44  >
Carl M. Kadie    49  >
Leonard Erickson 76  >[UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Eric Sage        59  ISU usenet restrictions... Cornell is not alone!
00hfstahlke@leo  41  State legislatures and acad-f policy
Andrew Templin   76  >
Carl M. Kadie    89  Policy: "USING COMPUTERS AT RENSSELAER"
Carl M. Kadie   112  Louisiana Tech University Computer Policies
Carl M. Kadie   460  University of North Texas Computer Policy
Carl M. Kadie   117  U. of Nebraska at Omaha - Computer Policies


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 24 16:49:48 1992
From: jiro@shaman.com
Subject: Article 1--Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 12:57:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.215422.18851@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:
>In <1992Nov19.184048.7621@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rkeller@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rod Keller) writes:
>>Look, it's the net.police!
>Yes, well, the net.police appear to be working with the FBI this time
>around. I noticed a story on ClariNews which described an FBI
>investigation at Cornell and mentioned that a student's room had been
>searched.

You are quite right. The FBI did search the individual's room and he has
been detained pending formal charges of distributing child pornography.
According to the Cornell Daily Sun report I read, his neighbours were
altogether unsurprised that he was caught for this particular crime. 

I have found Stuart Lynn to not be an overly zealous system administrator.
His reaction to the virus (where again students were arrested) and to
this incidence (which involves the Feds) was exactly what was warranted.
I think Cornell has had enough with being the "Bad Computing Center" of
the world -- that which emanates viruses and pornography and not research.


   Jiro Nakamura


ps. Personally I wonder how the students have time for all those foibles...
Most of them are enginerds, don't they have better things to do like
xtrek or irc?

-- 
Jiro Nakamura				jiro@shaman.com (NeXTmail)
NeXTwatch / Technical Editor		76711,542 (CIS)
The Shaman Group			+1 607 277-1440 (Voice/Fax)
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


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

From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 03:52:07 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 2--Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 08:10:53 GMT

geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner) writes:

[...]
>In this case I think Cornell made the right decision. Access to
>alt.binaries.pictures.* is not a fundamental human right. If you really
>need to look at dirty pictures you can buy a magazine at your local
>newstand (or subscribe).
[...]

I hope Cornell decision was based on competent legal advice rather
than the rationale you suggest. Your rationale is too broad; it could
be used to justify almost any ban of almost any material.

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
library/challenged-materials.ala
=================
* Challenged Materials (ALA)

An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"

=================
library/diversity.ala
=================
* Diversity in Collection Development (ALA)

An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library
Bill of Rights"

It says that collections should be inclusive, not exclusive. And that
materials should cover the needs and interest of all patrons. "This
includes materials that reflect political, economic, religious,
social, minority, and sexual issues."

=================
library/censorship.def.ala
=================
* Definition of "Censorship" and Related Terms (ALA)

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

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/library/challenged-materials.ala
  pub/academic/library/diversity.ala
  pub/academic/library/censorship.def.ala

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/library challenged-materials.ala
send acad-freedom/library diversity.ala
send acad-freedom/library censorship.def.ala
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


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

From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:22:10 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.config
Subject: Article 3--Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Date: 25 Nov 92 21:00:04 GMT


DanZ says that "In terms of academic freedom, an academic resource
must be specifically exempt from judgments of it's value."

I believe this to be at variance with generally accepted public
policy. It confuses academic resources provided by individuals with
academic resources provided with public funds. It ignores the common
decision problem when demands for academic resources far outstrip the
funds available for such resources.

In the specific context of this thread, it is the above issues which
arise, not the issue of privately or individually provided academic
resources.

I doubt anyone would object to someone at Cornell providing a database
of materials (that did not violate the laws) at his own expense for
use by himself and fellow researchers, even via network access over
his own facilities. That's not, as I understand it, what this discussion
is about.

Allocators of funds are constantly making decisions about the relative
values of alternative uses for those funds, starting with the granters
of public moneys for research projects, and going on from there.
Nobody is "entitled" to access or funds just because they declare
their particular interest to be an academic resource.

In short, resort to "academic freedom" in this discussion can be a
close relative of the remark that 'patriotism is the last refuge of
the scoundrel.'

(To avoid flames from those unfamiliar with the quote, note that it
does not say that everyone who is patriotic is a scoundrel.)

David

-- 
David Sternlight
PGP public key on request; RIPEM public key on server
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


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

From caf-talk Caf Nov 28 17:33:34 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 4--Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIER
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 22:28:49 GMT


[On the one hand, an institution shouldn't keep materials illegally.
On the other hand, an institution of learning should have goals just
minimizing potential legal liability. (The "best" way minimize
potential legal liability would be to ban *all* books, public areas,
students, teachers, computers, and computer newsgroups.) Here is the
American Library Association's suggested policy on challenged
materials. The gist is that material should only be banned after due
process. - Carl]


                            CHALLENGED MATERIALS

                An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS


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.

Challenged materials which meet the criteria for selection in the materials
selection policy of the library should not be removed under any legal or
extra-legal pressure.  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."  Freedom of expression is protected by the Constitution of the
United States, but constitutionally protected expression is often separated
from unprotected expression only by a dim and uncertain line.  The
Constitution requires a procedure designed to focus searchingly on challenged
expression before it can be suppressed.  An adversary hearing is a part of
this procedure.

Therefore, any attempt, be it legal or extra-legal, to regulate or suppress
materials in libraries must be closely scrutinized to the end that protected
expression is not abridged.

Adopted June 25, 1971; amended July 1, 1981; amended January 10, 1990, by the
ALA Council.

[Made available by permission of the American Library Association.]
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


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

From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 17:36:02 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 5--Re: [UPI] "FBI probes computer child porn at Cornell"
Date: 29 Nov 92 22:28:15 GMT

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:


>In article <EMCGUIRE.92Nov25105451@fuller.intellection.com>, 
>emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) said:

>> ...am I the only one who thinks that the victims of child
>> pornography are the children, that it is the government's
>> responsibility to protect them, and that laws prohibiting the making
>> and distribution of child pornography ought to be enforced?  Does
>> everyone believe that the posting of child pornography to netnews
>> should be either protected or ignored by the government?

>This discussion is going to degenerate into pure static unless people
>take the time to define just what the phrase "child pornography" means.

As a *practical* matter, I suggest that we use the definition in 
18 USCS section 2252 (and following). This was put into law in
1991. And is *the law* in the US.

>(1) Are we talking about _all_ materials which are intended to be
>arousing to people with a sexual interest in children, or just the
>subset of materials the production of which which involved the
>use/abuse of actual children?  (That is, would a _drawing_, drawn
>entirely from the artist's imagination, of an adult male penetrating a
>seven-year-old girl come under the heading of "child pornography" as
>the term is being used in this discussion?)

No. It must involve "the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit
conduct".  This phrase occurs in pratically every paragraph of the law.

Section 2256. Definitions for chapter
Fort the purposes of this chapter [18 USCS sections 2251 et seq.] the 
term --

	(1) "minor" means any person under the age of eighteen years;

	(2) "sexually explicit conduct" means actual or simulated --
		(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital,
		oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whther
		between persons of the same or opposite sex;
		(B) bestiality;
		(C) masturbation;
		(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse (for the purpose of
		sexual stimulation);
		or
		(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area
		of any person;

{it goes on to define other terms like "producing" and "distributing"}

>(2) With regard to the latter subset, are we talking about all such
>materials or only those which depict children engaging in sexual acts?
>(That is, would a full-frontal photograph of a nude seven-year-old boy
>standing alone against a neutral backdrop come under the heading of
>"child pornography" as the term is being used in this discussion?)

See the definition above. If his genitals or pubic area are being
"lasciviously exhibited" the answer is yes. And you will be up on federal
charges if you posses more than 3 such "visual depictions". 

And you should see what sort of records you are required to keep if 
you *produce* any sort of ""visual depictions" that are legal. You have to
have records of the name and age of *every* person in them, as well as
*any other names they have ever used*! And each item you distribute
must contain a statement identifying where the records are!


-- 
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 Nov 29 17:01:42 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: esage@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Eric Sage)
Subject: Article 6--ISU usenet restrictions... Cornell is not alone!
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 22:00:46 GMT

Something a friend of mine got a few days ago...

(From an ISU student whose name I'm deleting to save him from unwanted
attention...)

Our Computation Center has developed a policy to restrict access to
Usenet. It basically sets up a three tier system: Focused access,
which eliminates all alt. and rec. groups; Standard access, which
eliminates alt.personals.bondage, alt.sex, alt.sex.bestiality
,alt.sex.bondage, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica, alt.sex.motss
,alt.sex.pictures ,alt.sex.pictures.d alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d;
and Full access, which allows all groups. In order to get anything but
Standard access, a form must be filed with the Computation Center to
allow a specific machine that you have full control over to get the
Full or Focused feed.  All public-access machines will have only
Standard access.

What this means to students is that they have restricted access to
Usenet: most students (over 99%, I'm sure) do not own their own
machine with access to the ISU network. This means they can only use
the public access machines, which have the restricted Standard access.
Even those who do have a machine they can control must file the form
with the Computation Center, which denies them the ability to read
newsgroups anonymously (if the form is filed, the C. C. can assume
that the filer is reading at least one of the above mentioned
groups...)

The selection of which groups to censor was made solely on the basis
of the names and the descriptions of the groups. The University says
the policy is designed to comply with state and federal laws, but in
actuality they gain nothing from the enactment of this policy. It must
be assumed in any case that the University is not responsible for
ideas it does not express (posts to these newsgroups), and even if it
wasn't assumed, it would be much easier and less restrictive to just
place a message in some hard-to-miss place stating that ISU is not
responsible for what it posted to Usenet, 'read at your own risk'.

A group of students called the Students for Electronic Freedom have been
attempting to work with the administration to change this policy to one
that gives users the responsibility of reading or not reading material
they consider offensive. This solution would allow any students or staff
that wished to to read whatever groups they wish, without filing a form,
and without putting the university in the imagined legal bind.


I see Usenet and Internet as the best examples of the power of free speech,
and to see them marred by censorship like this is very offensive to me, and
many of my fellow students. That is why I feel a responsibility to make it
known to others that ISU is doing this.

              Thanks for reading,
                 <name deleted>

Any comments?

			-esage@occs.cs.oberlin.edu


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

From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 09:46:43 1992
From: 00hfstahlke@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 7--State legislatures and acad-f policy
Date: 25 Nov 92 13:49:01 GMT

I've just read the new academic freedom news summary (for which my thanks go to
Carl), and I've finally decided to raise a decidedly political issue that also
influences policy and practice.

We have a large VAX cluster with e-mail and, as far as I can tell, the full
range of newsgroups.  We don't exclude any newsgroups; VAX systech reports to
me and assures me that is the case.  My concern is with the perception of some
in our university administration that most of what the cluster is used for is
email among students, largely for social purposes, and that that use is not
academic and should not be supported.  I have demonstrated that, although mail
is a large use, it represents only about 15% of total CPU time, and that has
generally satisfied them.  There is no way I can determine whether the other
allegation is true, that the mail is largely social, without looking at
everyone's mail files, which would be a waste of time even if it weren't a
violation of privacy.

The reason that the purpose for which mail is used is an issue occasionally,
and now I also include other non-academic uses like most game-playing, most
newsgroups, and most pornographic writing and pictures, is the concern that
state legislators, who ultimately decide our funding, may get the impression
that we are not good stewards of the resources they have given us and will cut
back on university support.  Whether this is a bogeyman or a real concern, it
is perceived by many in influential positions to be worth thinking about.  

My question, by now obvious, is how we deal with this concern.  Do we let it
shape policy?  Do we let it influence practice?  How far?  To keep it
continually to the fore is paranoid, but to ignore it completely is reckless. 
We are managing these systems for the taxpayers of our state, and we cannot be
insensitive to their concerns.

I'd like to see some discussion of this side of the free speech and academic
freedom issue.  I don't think there are easy answers to it, but someone out
there may have greater wisdom on it than I.

Herb Stahlke
Associate Director
University Computing Services
Ball State University 


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

From caf-talk Caf Nov 25 20:16:16 1992
From: nosilla@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Andrew J. Templin)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 8--Re: State legislatures and acad-f policy
Date: 25 Nov 92 22:06:35 GMT

Previously, 00hfstahlke@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu has written:
>I've just read the new academic freedom news summary (for which my thanks go to
>Carl), and I've finally decided to raise a decidedly political issue that also
>influences policy and practice.
>
>We have a large VAX cluster with e-mail and, as far as I can tell, the full
>range of newsgroups. [  00hfstahlke goes on to explain what usage the
VAX Cluster is used for, etc.  Deleted for brevity. ]

>The reason that the purpose for which mail is used is an issue occasionally,
>and now I also include other non-academic uses like most game-playing, most
>newsgroups, and most pornographic writing and pictures, is the concern that
>state legislators, who ultimately decide our funding, may get the impression
>that we are not good stewards of the resources they have given us and will cut
>back on university support.  Whether this is a bogeyman or a real concern, it
>is perceived by many in influential positions to be worth thinking about.  

I would agree completely.


>My question, by now obvious, is how we deal with this concern.  Do we let it
>shape policy?  Do we let it influence practice?  How far?  To keep it
>continually to the fore is paranoid, but to ignore it completely is reckless. 
>We are managing these systems for the taxpayers of our state, and we cannot be
>insensitive to their concerns.
>
>I'd like to see some discussion of this side of the free speech and academic
>freedom issue.  I don't think there are easy answers to it, but someone out
>there may have greater wisdom on it than I.
>
>Herb Stahlke
>Associate Director
>University Computing Services
>Ball State University 

Being a member of the Ball State Community, and having read this 
newgroup for a quite a while, I would like to comment on University
Computing Services at Ball State University, and on this subject.

I am HORRIFIED at the idea of letting politicians who know nothing 
about computer networks and the subculture it creates dictating what
may and may not be on that system - even if they DO grant the funding.
However, this is a valid point.  Many at BSU complain about UCS and 
the way they manage the VAX Cluster we have - but, in 99% of the 
complaints I have heard, the user wants special privileges ABOVE 
AND BEYOND the normal privs granted.  Censorship is almost unheard
of, and you are only limited by the disk space quota. Also, the list of
newsgroups on UCS's VAX machines is enormous - more than I could possibly read.

Ball State grants a VAX account to anyone who is enrolled or 
employed at the university  - and, up to now, they could also
get an account on the Computer Science machine.  (This was revoked
due to storage space, I understand.)  I, and many others, have 
benefited greatly as a result - the use of EMail results in a 
terrific amount of idea exchange, etc.

The net result of this is that there is more computer literacy on 
this campus than any other campus I have ever seen.  Since this is
such an important goal with education today, I would think that 
pointing this out would be a beneficial argument toward keeping the 
VAX Cluster an "open" system.

NOTE:  I am _not_ a UCS employee.  I have never actually met 
	Mr. Stahlke, although we have corresponded upon occasion.
	
	My point in posting this was to preserve the atmosphere of 
	expression and learning that has grown at Ball State - it
	would be a damn shame to see it die.

-- 
Andrew J. Templin, Confused Programmer, Ball State University
VAX: 00AJTEMPLIN@bsu-ucs.bsu.edu   ULTRIX: nosilla@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
"Ad Meorium Cthulhi Gloriam"            "Carpe Carp"


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

From caf-talk Caf Nov 29 16:24:54 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 9--Policy: "USING COMPUTERS AT RENSSELAER"
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1992 09:24:41 GMT

[Reference: gopher windex.its.rpi.edu 70]

                    USING COMPUTERS AT RENSSELAER                  
                                                                   
   Rensselaer  strives  to  achieve  its educational and research  
   goals by providing quality computing facilities. These include  
   large  and  small systems, communication networks and personal  
   computers  as  well  associated  software,  files,  and  data.  
   Although computers affect how we communicate and interact with  
   each other, computers do not change underlying societal values  
   and  established  individual  rights  with respect to personal  
   privacy and ownership of property.  Computing  facilities  are  
   also  recognized  as  community resources. Each computer user,  
   therefore, is expected to act responsibly in order to  protect  
   the   rights   of  others  and  to  use  computing  facilities  
   appropriately.                                                  
                                                                   
   Computers  are  tools  intended  to help people in their work,  
   learning, and research efforts. Like  other  tools,  computing  
   equipment  and  associated software, files, and data belong to  
   someone, either to an  individual,  an  organization,  or  the  
   Institute  and,  as  such, are private property. The nature of  
   one's access to and use of Rensselaer's  computing  facilities  
   is   determined   by   an  individual's  relationship  to  the  
   Institute. It is each computer user's responsibility  to  find  
   out  about particular conditions of use and to obtain required  
   authorization  in  advance  of  any  use.   In   some   cases,  
   authorization  may  be  simply receiving a password to a class  
   account in order to do required homework; in other  cases,  it  
   may require first finding out who is the owner of a particular  
   piece of equipment and then getting the owner's permission  to  
   use  it.  Using  or  attempting  to  use  computing facilities  
   without authorization is not acceptable behavior.               
                                                                   
   Examples  of  misuse  of computing facilities include, but are  
   not limited to:                                                 
                                                                   
        1.   Using  another  person's  computer  account  without  
        permission;                                                
                                                                   
        2. Using a computer account for purposes other than those  
        intended by the account administrator;                     
                                                                   
        3.  Reading,  changing, duplicating, or deleting files or  
        software  without  permission  of  the  owner  or  system  
        administrator;                                             
                                                                   
        4. Distributing information not intended for distribution  
        by  its  owner  (e.g.  private  notes, computer projects,  
        theses, telephone access  codes,  passwords,  copyrighted  
        material);                                                 
                                                                   
        5. Deliberately preventing others  from  using  a  system  
        without  acceptable  cause or unreasonably slowing down a  
        system;                                                    
                                                                   
        6. Bypassing accounting mechanisms;                        
                                                                   
        7. Violating copyright or licensing agreements  regarding  
        software or software documentation;                        
                                                                   
        8. Deliberately wasting computer resources (e.g. printing  
        blank pages or unnecessary copies);                        
                                                                   
        9. Using any computer facility to violate the Grounds for  
        Disciplinary  Action  (e.g. harassment, fraud, falsifying  
        information, academic dishonesty, etc.) Note:  Harassment  
        is  that  which  is annoying or threatening to the person  
        receiving the message or action; 10. Attempting to modify  
        system hardware or software without the permission of the  
        system administrator.                                      
                                                                   
   When  there  is  an  indication  that  a  misuse  of computing  
   facilities has occurred, the  administrator  of  the  computer  
   system    is   authorized   to   investigate   the   incident.  
   Investigations involving accessing a user's private  files  or  
   data  require  prior  authorization  from  the appropriate RPI  
   official. For students,  this  is  the  Dean  of  Students  or  
   designee; and for faculty, staff, and outside users, it is the  
   Provost or designee. Misuse  of  computing  resources  may  be  
   referred  to  the  appropriate  authority  for disciplinary or  
   legal action.                                                   

 




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



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

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.comp.acad-freedom.news