From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.47 2/2 (Digest)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:08:49 GMT

Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 02, No. 47


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

From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 17:56:34 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: maanstro@iastate.edu (Mark A Anstrom)
Subject: Article 5--More ISU Censorship info
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1992 21:01:52 GMT

I never dreamed I'd get such a response. Thanks for all the input.

To answer a few questions:

Iowa State is a state school supported by Iowan taxpayers. The president of
ISU answers to the Board of Reagents, and they in turn answer to the
Legislature of the State of Iowa.

The Dept of Residence has not said anything about the nature of the posts that
prompted this policy, save that they were "racist" and "denegrating". Rumor 
has it that the student committee has been formed. However, the names of its
members are not known, nor have I seen anywhere on campus information on how
to join. Nothing at all has been said about any of its deliberations or 
recommendations made regarding the policy. It would not surprise me at all if
we hear nothing until a new policy is approved by the Dept of Residence. It 
would have the veneer of student approval and would therefore be stronger in
a court of law.

There is no place on the ISU campus officially designated as a free speech
area, though the campus (but no longer the dorms) have long been unofficially
considered free speech areas. Dorm doors, previous to the policy, had been
unofficially considered free speech areas as long as anyone here can remember.

We signed our contracts for fall lodging in the residence halls in March, two
months before this policy was announced. Therefore, we did not sign away our
right to post in our room contract. There are roughly 8,000 students in the
residence halls, and for all of them to find lodging elsewhere is impossible.
Apartments in the Ames area are generally old, dingy, expensive, far from
campus, and less condusive to study than the residence halls.

The ISU Daily printed an editorial I wrote on September 2. It's long, so I
won't post it in its intirety, unless somebody wants me to. In summary, I 
cited Tinker v Des Moines, RAV v. St Paul, Ward v. RAR, and Frisby v. Schultz
to show that the door policy was unconstitutional. I also sent a copy to the
director of residence, so I know he has seen it. No response has been made,
either in private or in public.


-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


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

From caf-talk Caf Sep 21 18:32:54 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 6--[comp.org.eff.talk] EFFector Online 3.05
Date: 21 Sep 92 22:32:39 GMT

Two paragraphs from an article in comp.org.eff.talk by Mike Godwin:

[....]
>=====================================================================
>EFFector Online           September 18, 1992              Issue  3.05
>         A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
>                           ISSN 1062-9424
>=====================================================================
>
>                           EFF LEGAL SERVICES
>                             by Mike Godwin
>                      EFF Staff Counsel, Cambridge
[...]
REQUESTS FOR HELP IN SITUATIONS WHERE THERE'S NO CRIMINAL OR CIVIL CASE
This category includes situations in which, for example, a college
student has his computer-access privileges suspended because a "hacker
newsletter" is discovered by a system administrator rummaging through
the student's directory. (I've explained to more than one system
administrator that mere possession of such information does not make one
a computer intruder, and that their rummaging may have violated the
students' rights.) Or a university computer center may decide to suspend
some kinds of Usenet newsgroups, justifying their actions by saying
they're afraid the sexually oriented newsgroups are illegal. (I've
written and spoken to university administrators to explain that
virtually none of the discussions in the sexually oriented newsgroups on
Usenet qualify legally as "obscenity"--instead, they're protected
expression under established American Constitutional law.) Or a group of
sysops may be concerned about their local phone company's efforts to
impose business rates on nonprofit BBS phone lines. (I now refer most
such calls to Shari Steele, ssteele@eff.org, the staff counsel of EFF's
Washington office, who has given special study to these issues.)
[...]
   It is important that EFF members and constituents recognize we are
here to help you solve individual problems as well as promote your
interests on general policy issues. If you are running into a legal
problem, or if you simply have a general legal question, or even if
you're having a problem on the Electronic Frontier and you're not sure
whether or not it's a legal problem, you should call me, Mike Godwin, at
617-864-0665, or send me electronic mail at mnemonic@eff.org or at
76711,317 on CompuServe. I won't always be able to help, but I'm always
willing to listen. And I may be able to help more often than you'd
think.
[...]
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


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

From caf-talk Caf Sep 26 16:02:57 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 7--"Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 19:53:43 GMT

Author and newspaper person (publisher? reporter?) Nat Hentoff spoke
on "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment" this morning at the U.
of Illinois. The occasion was the keynote speech for the Library
School's Centennial.

Here are my scattered notes from that talk, followed by a list of Mr.
Hentoff's free-speech related books, followed by references to on-line
copies of some of the court cases he mentioned.

- Carl Kadie

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

* His latest book is:_Free speech for me--but not for thee: how the
  American left and right relentlessly censor each other_

* The Supreme Court's _RAV vs. St. Paul_ decision may be the most
  important pro-speech decision since the 1930's. The St. Paul law not
  only made cross burning in someone else's yard illegal, it also made
  many signs in your own yard illegal. For example: "Bishop Smith is a
  fink for opposing the freedom of choice". Or, in the 1950's in the
  South: "Integrate the White Segregated Schools".

* The St. Paul cross burner could have been tried not only on arson,
  trespass, *and* Minnesota's law against terrorist treat. The
  prosecutor, however, choose to try him only on the city's ordinance
  against hate speech.

* Many liberal groups supported the law. Only a few groups opposed it.
  The best brief against the law was by the Freedom to Read
  Foundation. The ACLU was also against the law, but its brief was
  weaker than it should have been because the National Office (in NYC)
  watered down a brief written in Minnesota.

* The Court voted 9-0 that the law was too broad. A majority of 5,
  however, went further. Their decision was written by Scalia (who
  previously voted that flag burning was protected). The majority
  decision said that not only was the law too broad but it also was
  too selective in how it applied the Fighting Words Doctrine. The
  Majority said that it was improper for the city to ban some fighting
  words (e.g. those related to race, sex, religion, etc.) but not
  others (e.g. those related to political views, handicap, etc). It
  said:

         "(b)A few limited categories of speech, such as obscenity,
         defamation, and fighting words, may be regulated because of
         their constitutionally proscribable content.  However, these
         categories are not entirely invisible to the Constitution,
         and government may not regulate them based on hostility, or
         favoritism, towards a nonproscribable message they contain."

  This is the first time the Court has said that no category of speech
  is invisible to the First Amendment.

* The Fighting Words doctrine was created in 1942. It is the basis for
  most college speech codes and hate speech laws. However, it has
  never been used at the Supreme Court level since 1942 and with this
  decision it is pretty much dead because it is always applied
  selectively.

* Id _RAV_ had gone the other way, many cites and states would have
  created similar laws.

* The day after the _RAV_ decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck
  down an "enhancement law" (e.g. if you hit someone, you go to jail
  for one year, if you hit someone and call them a racial or religion
  name, you go to jail for 3 years.). A good article about these laws
  was written by Susan Gelman in the _UCLA Law Review_ in 1991. She
  points out that such laws would cause prosecutors to investigate the
  history of a accused criminal to search for books, associations, and
  speech that might indicate evidence to bigotry.

* In the 1950's Herbert Marcuse wrote about "Repressive
  Tolerance" in which only good points of view would be allowed. His
  vision is coming true.

* The Court's _Rust v. Sullivan_ decision was one of its worst ever
  because it said that government could restrict speech in family
  planning clinics but not universities because there is only
  tradition of free speech at universities. This ignore the tradition
  of freedom of medical speech and makes it sound as though
  universities are the only places with a tradition of freedom of
  speech.

* The so-called Porn Victim's Compensation Act is probably coming up
  for a vote in 3 weeks in the Senate. This law would make writers,
  distributors, and directors financially responsible for the bad things
  that their work "causes" people to do. The law requires that cause
  and effect be "proven" but does not define the word.

* At Harvard a year or few ago, a student from the South displayed a
  Confederate flag from her window. (She said she wanted to see if
  northern liberals really believed in freedom of speech.) Many people
  tried to have the school force her to take it down. In reply, a
  black student displayed a strong anti-bigotry (?) banner from his
  window. The school denounced the displays but refused to order them
  down. Because of the displays, discussion of racism on campus
  increased.

* Nat Hentoff knew Malcolm X pretty well the last two years of Malcolm
  X's life. Malcolm X thought that black youth had to demystify
  language and empower themselves to use it effectively.


Some Books by Nat Hentoff:

     Hentoff, Nat. 
     Free speech for me--but not for thee : how the American left and
         right relentlessly censor each other / Nat Hentoff. 1st ed. New
         York : Aaron Asher Books, c1992.
     p. cm. 
     Includes index. 
     ISBN  006019006X : $$25.00 
       1. Freedom of speech--United States.   2. Censorship--United
         States.  I. Title.  
     ocm25-410523  

     Hentoff, Nat. 
     American heroes : in and out of school / Nat Hentoff. New York : 
         Delacorte Press, c1987. 
     126 p. 
     Includes index. 
     Bibliography: p. :119: 
     ISBN  0385295650 
       1. Civil rights--United States--Juvenile literature.   2. Freedom
         of speech--United States--Juvenile literature.   3. Students--Legal
         status, laws, etc.--United States--Juvenile literature.  I. Title.  
     AC:    1. Freedom of speech.   2. Civil rights.   3. United States--
         Constitutional law--Amendments--1st-10th. 
     ocm14-818419  


     Hentoff, Nat. 
     The day they came to arrest the book : a novel / by Nat Hentoff. 
         New York : Delacorte Press, c1982. 
     169 p. ; 22 cm. 
     ISBN  0440020395 : $$10.95 
      I. Title.  
     AC:    1. School stories.   2. Censorship--Fiction. 
     ocm08-552177  


     Hentoff, Nat. 
     Blues for Charlie Darwin / Nat Hentoff. New York : W. Morrow, 
         c1982. 
     203 p. ; 22 cm. 
     ISBN  0688012604 
      I. Title.  
     ocm08-280334  


     Hentoff, Nat. 
     The first freedom : a tumultuous history of free speech in America
         / Nat Hentoff. New York : Delacorte Press, :1980: 
     x, 340 p. ; 23 cm. 
     Includes index. 
     Summary:  A history of free speech in our country from earliest
         times to some of the controversial court cases of today
         involving school demonstrations and the right of Nazis to
         march.
     Bibliography: p. 325-328. 
     ISBN  0440038502 
       1. Freedom of speech--United States--History--Juvenile
         literature.  I. Title.  
          AC:    1. Freedom of speech--History. 
     ocm05-334782  


     Are libraries fair? :sound recording: : pre-selection censorship in
         a time of resurgent conservatism. Chicago : American Library
         Association, 1982. 
     1 sound cassette (ca. 60 min.) : analog, 1 7/8 ips, mono. 
     Title on container: Are libraries fair? pre-selection censorship. 
     Cosponsored by ALTA Intellectual Freedom Committee/Intellectual
         Freedom Round Table/PaLA Intellectual Freedom Committee/YASD
         Intellectual Freedom Committee. 
     82107-010. 
     Recorded at 101st Annual ALA Conference, Philadelphia, Pa., July
       10, 1982. 
       1. Book selection 2. Libraries--Censorship I. Thomas, Cal.  II.
         Hentoff, Nat.  III. American Library Association Conference
         (101st : 1982 : Philadelphia, Pa.)  IV. 3 1337 00010 7796 V.
         American Library Association. Intellectual Freedom Committee.
     ocm08-638442  


     Books under fire :motion picture: / Bennett Watts Bennett
         Productions ; producers and directors, Arnold Bennett and Grady Watts,
         Jr. Wilmette, Ill. : Films Inc., 1983. 
     1 film reel (58 min.) : sd., col. ; 16 mm. 
     Intended audience: Ages 15 through adult. 
     Summary:  Pivoting on the case of Sheck vs. the Woodland, Me.,
         School Committee, in which several students and parents
         challenged the schools' banning of Dr. Ronald Glasser's book
         entitled 365 days, broadens into a national perspective on
         the increasing incidences of book censorship in U.S. public
         schools. Includes insights of noted journalist Nat Hentoff
         and focuses on the censorship efforts of Mel and Norma Gabler
         in Woodland, Me.
       1. School libraries--United States--Censorship.  2.
         Censorship-- United States.  I. Hentoff, Nat.  II. Gabler,
         Mel.  III. Gabler, Norma.  IV. Glasser, Ronald J. 365 days.
         V. Indiana University, Bloomington.  Audio-Visual Center.
         VI. Films Incorporated.  VII. Bennett Watts Bennett
         Productions.
     ocm10-299456  

     Books under fire! / produced and directed by Arnold Bennett and
         Grady Watts, Jr. ; executive producer, Alvin Goldstein. Kent,
         Ohio ; PTV Publications, c1982.  :2:, 28 p. ; 22 cm. (Crisis
         to crisis ;)
     Transcript of PBS program broadcast in the Crisis to crisis series,
         hosted by Barbara Jordan, on September 10, 1982, discussing
         the attempt to ban Ronald Glasser's 365 days from the
         Woodland, Maine, school systems.
       1. Glasser, Ronald. 365 days.   2. Censorship--United States. 
         3. School libraries--United States--Censorship.  4. Sheck vs.
         Woodland School Committee.  I. Bennett, Arnold.  II. Watts, Grady. 
         III. Gabler, Mel.  IV. Gabler, Norma.  V. Hentoff, Nat.  VI. Series.  
     ocm22-522964  


ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
law/rav-v-st-paul.1
=================
The Supreme Court's _R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul_ decision about hate crimes.

The Court overturned St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which
prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to
know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of
race, color, creed, religion or gender."

Included: summary, majority opinion, 3 concurring opinions.

=================
law/wisconsin-v-mitchell
=================
A political magazine's description of _State of Wisconsin v. Todd
Mitchell_, a Wisconsin Supreme Court case which appeared to outlawed
all hate crime laws in Wisconsin.

=================
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.

=================
law/cohen-v-california.1
=================
Definition of "fighting words"; why no right not to be offended

The definition of fighting words from _Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_
and then _Cohen v. California_. Also, says quotes the Supreme Court
saying that there is no universal right to not hear offensive
expression.

=================
law/cohen-v-california.2
=================
Netnews article with reference _Cohen v. California_, "in which the
court ruled that Cohen's jacket, which stated "Fuck the Draft" was a
protected form of free speech, even though he wore it in a county
courthouse."

=================
law/brandenberg-v-ohio
=================
In e-mail, a correspondent expressed the view that there was no right
to speech that advocated violence. This response is based on U.S. law.
It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill of Rights Briefing Paper #10:
Freedom of Expression. The Supreme Court's standard is that speech may
not be suppressed or punished unless it is intended to produce
'imminent lawless action' and it is 'likely to produce such action.'

=================
law/tinker_v_des_moines
=================
Excerpt from the ACLU Handbook _The Rights of Students_ (3rd edition)
by Janet R. Price, Alan H. Levine, and Eve Cary. It says that school
cannot prohibit students from handing literature such as underground
newspapers on school property.

=================
law/tinker_v_des_moines.2
=================
A few excerpts from the majority decision in _Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District_ (1969). It concerned
non-disruptive political expression in schools. The Supreme Court held
that two students had the right to wear black armbands to school as a
protest against the Vietnam War.

=================
law/childrens-legal-foundation-v-fcc
=================
A newspaper story saying that the Supreme Court refuses to allow a
total ban on indecent TV and radio material.

=================
law/dial-information-vs-barr
=================
Newspaper story saying: "The Supreme Court Monday allowed the
government to require adults wanting to take part in ``dial-a-porn''
telephone dialogue to first take a series of steps meant to keep
children from joining in the sexually explicit conversations."


=================
caf
=================
A description to 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?

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

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

  pub/academic/law/rav-v-st-paul.1
  pub/academic/law/wisconsin-v-mitchell
  pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
  pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.1
  pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.2
  pub/academic/law/brandenberg-v-ohio
  pub/academic/law/tinker_v_des_moines
  pub/academic/law/tinker_v_des_moines.2
  pub/academic/law/childrens-legal-foundation-v-fcc
  pub/academic/law/dial-information-vs-barr
  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/law rav-v-st-paul.1
send acad-freedom/law wisconsin-v-mitchell
send acad-freedom/law rust-v-sullivan
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.1
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.2
send acad-freedom/law brandenberg-v-ohio
send acad-freedom/law tinker_v_des_moines
send acad-freedom/law tinker_v_des_moines.2
send acad-freedom/law childrens-legal-foundation-v-fcc
send acad-freedom/law dial-information-vs-barr
send acad-freedom caf
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


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

From caf-talk Caf Sep 26 21:32:09 1992
From: ST32373@VM.CC.LATECH.EDU
Subject: Article 8--NICK=La. Tech=CENSORSHIP
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 10:10:38 CST

 In keeping with the spirit of censorship, La Tech has turned off all the stude
nts e-mail functions for Internet. This is the only way I can respond to those
of you who said they would send me VCR tapes. I STILL WANT THEM! Just give me a
 voice number or something where we can work out details.
 
 P.S. What is with this spirit of "family values" (READ:Censorship) that is swe
eping the nation? Not only has Tech turned off all the students mailfeed, I hav
e heard evidence that their are individuals reading students mail/posts/NNR sub
scriptions. I have also heard that some students NNR readings are used against
them. I have heard of a guy who was RAKED over the coals for reading some of th
e more "offbeat" shall we say, newsgroups. I know this is kind of out of place
but feel free to complain to Tech. Maybe they will turn OUR mail back on.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign



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

From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 20:12:21 1992
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date:         Thu, 24 Sep 1992 11:36:22 CDT
From:         Calvin Boyer <cjboyer@uci.edu>
Subject: Article 9--libraries and computer centers

----------------------------Original message----------------------------

"Choosing What Is Important in Times of Change"

Stephen Franklin, a UCI colleague of mine, whose interest is academic
computing centers writes:

        Computing is essential to the academic enterprise.  Within the
university, as elsewhere, the understanding of what "computing" encompasses
is changing.  While academic computing centers can be expected to provide a
smaller fraction of the total computing resources than in the past, what
they can be expected and challenged to provide can be of increasing
importance in integrating academic computing resources, in allowing those
using these resources to focus on their primary academic endeavors, in
broadening the utility of these resources, and in helping shape the academic
community's vision of what can be accomplished with these resources.

*********
Stephen D. Franklin. "Academic Computing Centers as Strategic University
Resources," in IFIP World Computer Congress (12th : 1992 : Madrid).
Information Processing 92, Vol. II.  Proceedings .... Elsevier Science
Publishers B.V. (North Holland), p.114.
*********

What Franklin envisions for computing centers and what university libraries
face are strikingly similar.  Given this convergence of circumstances,
these two primary campus service organizations can profit immeasurably by
drawing from the other's treasury of experiences and expertise.  Within
our libraries, no one can remain ignorant of our rapidly escalating
dependence upon computers and telecommunications to deliver a growing
portion of needed information.  While the portion of information
provided through libraries to campuses inevitably will change, and like
computing centers, that portion is very likely a diminishing one, the
urgent need for personnel in both library and computing center to
ensure a greater integration of information resources available to the
user community is beyond question.

For librarians (and computer personnel as well) the challenge is a daunting
one.  Virtually everyone throughout our campuses is ignorant of some
important information source(s).  While such has, no doubt, always
been true, the continuing proliferation of information sources and
formats has raised the level of such ignorance for most individuals.

Probably no other arena highlights this issue so elegantly as
the mushrooming volume of information in electronic format. If we
are to provide a measure of sophisticated assistance to faculty and
students which will enable them to exploit more fully electronic
information resources, our need to master an entirely new set of
tools is self evident.  Yet unlike reference works in paper format, not
only are the electronic tools dynamic but they are machine-dependent
with a requisite, often unique, set of vocabulary and protocols,
(some of which are even non-intuitive).

While the gains in "market penetration" by our electronic library
discussion lists (listservs) are surely commendable, one
surmises that among the subscribers there is yet a large percentage
who are not yet proficient in searching for information among the
resulting archives.  With listserv subscribers representing today a
minor fraction of our own professional population, even conservative
extrapolations suggest how probable it is that librarians and users
alike will miss readily available useful information.  Such examples
merely underscore the pressing need for our own continuing education
and training.

It seems almost trite to be concerned with "turf" for the challenge
facing us very likely is larger than can be fully met by the
combined talents of both computing centers and libraries.  If so,
then our mutual success in assisting others and in particular students
will be increasingly contingent upon our working with and through
faculty to achieve "information literacy" for our populations.

Likewise, the elusive proper mix of paper and electricity should not
preoccupy us to the extent that intervening generations of users of
our libraries of today and the electronic libraries of tomorrow
are shortchanged in their quests for information.  Revolutions
are underway in both computing centers and libraries as each seeks to
provide the community with services of increasing value and quality.
As with any revolution, outcomes can not be entirely foreseen.  Yet,
we can shape forces within these revolutions to achieve desired outcomes.

   Calvin Boyer  Library  University of California, Irvine
              PO Box 19557  Irvine, CA  92713
BITNET  cjboyer@uci  INTERNET  cjboyer@uci.edu  PHONE  714 856-4764
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


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

From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 20:12:21 1992
From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 16:11:40 GMT
Subject: Article 10--Re: What do you do about alt.*
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk

In article <1992Sep20.031417.13992@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
: 
: [...]
: >Sex-related groups are not available to users under the age of majority.
: >Once they are at or beyond 21, I don't care what they look at, say, or do,
: >so long as they respect my right to peaceful co-existence :-)
: [...]
: 
: In the U.S. the age of majority for most things in most places is 18.
: (I thought it was about the same in Canada.
:
	In sexual matters, at least, from my work with unconventional 
	relationships, the age of consent for all but the most invasive
	of acts is 14.  (If you really want to know whaich, email me.)
	I can't see Canada being more strict with erotica thjan it is
	with intercourse itself.
: 
: [...]
: >I make the decision, but then I have the freedom of doing that - it's my
: >system. College and university managers don't have that freedom, since they
: >have to tolerate the goodie-two-shoes who are permitted to do their thinking
: >for them, and often must remove "politicly sensitive" material from their
: 
: >I'm not much on censorship, although I confess to being less than perfect in
: >this regard. I suspect society would be better off if the goodie-two-shoes
: >folks fucked right off, and left the rest of us to read whatever we chose
: >to. A university that censors the information available isn't entitled to
: >the respect it would normally enjoy. Cowardice is difficult to reconcile,
: >even for the "educated" among us who run our institutions of higher
: >learning.

	Bravo!  A copy of this post is being sent to the "goodie two-shoes"
	admins at Ohio State who banned me.

	As I said before, the only reason colleges & universities, not to 
	mention governments get away with censorship & various other offenses
	is because *WE, THE PEOPLE* let them.  We must begin to exercise some
	control over the monsters we've created.


: Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

--
Steven S. Brack        | B0 w+f s+k+c+v a!v |   sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
2021 Roanwood Drive    \____________________/  STU0061@uoft01.utoledo.edu
Toledo, OH  43613-1605 /                    \    brack@uoftcse.cse.utoledo.edu 
+1 419 GR4 1010        |  MY OWN  OPINIONS  |   sbrack@maine.cse.utoledo.edu 


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

From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 21:21:23 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Article 11--Re: Computer use policy document
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 22:32:42 GMT

In article <mumble>, deke@ee.rochester.edu (Dikran Kassabian) writes:
|> I'm interested in finding out whether there is a single repository, such as
|> an anonymous ftp site, of "University Computer Use Policy"-type documents.
|> I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there is a FAQ posting that appears
|> here and that such information is listed, but I haven't seen it yet.

Carl Kadie maintains just such an archive at ftp.eff.org in the
directory /pub/academic/policies.  I'm sure he'll respond to your post
with more information on it.

|> 
|> My Department/College has a Computer Use Policy document in place, and a 
|> faculty member is objecting to a certain section, included below.  There is
|> no argument with other sections on User rights and responsibilities.
|> 
|> 
|> |  3. Staff Responsibilities
|> |
|> |  In general, the staff of the College of Engineering computer facili-
|> |  ties has the responsibility of enforcing the rights and responsibil-
|> |  ities of the users of those facilities to the best of their ability.
|> |  Several specific staff responsibilities are listed below.
|> |
[...]
|> |
|> |    3.2 Staff should at all times respect the privacy of user files,
|> |    mail, and printer listings (but see Staff Rights below).
|> |
|> |  4. Staff Rights
|> |
 [...]
|> |    4.1 The networked computer environment in the College  of
|> |    Engineering is a facility provided to faculty, staff, and stu-
|> |    dents to enable them to accomplish certain tasks required by
|> |    their roles within the College and the University. There is an
|> |    acknowledged trade-off between the absolute right of privacy of a
|> |    user, and the need of the staff to gather necessary information
|> |    to ensure the continued functioning of this College-wide resource.

Your policy is making assumptions about privacy that may unecessarily
hinder you.  See my comments below.

|> |
|> |    In the normal course of system administration, the staff may have
|> |    to examine files, mail, and printer listings to gather sufficient
|> |    information to diagnose and correct problems with system software,
|> |    or to determine if a user is acting in violation of the policies set 
|> |    forth in this document. The staff has the right to do this.
|> |
|> |    As mentioned in Staff Responsibilities, above, the staff has an
|> |    obligation to maintain the privacy of a user's files, mail, and
|> |    printer listings.
|> 

You need to make a distinction between privacy and confidentiality.
Privacy means that you will not look at it.  Confidentiality means
that if you see it in the course of your job, you will not disclose it
to other people.  Generally speaking, staff should respect privacy
when possible.  If job duties require staff to break privacy, then
they should be bound by confidentiality considerations.  Even
confidentiality is not absolute.  There are circumstances when what
you see should be disclosed to appropriate third parties.  For
example, evidence of a crime.  In a university, a more pertinent one
would be evidence of cheating.  You need to establish the rules and
procedures for what a staff person should do in this case.

|> 
|> The objection stems from a concern that the staff has claimed an independent
|> "police power."  Such is certainly not the intent.  As I am often the local
|> champion of individual rights and freedoms, there's a certain irony here.

It is unclear from your posting which specific words in the policy lead
the faculty member to think you have claimed "police power".
Regardless, the faculty member's objection raises a question for him or
her.  Presumably he or she  objects to a staff "police power" because
he/she thinks that the staff should not have that power.  Well then,
who should at Rochester?  Policies are next to worthless if there is no
mechanism or authority to enforce them.  If not the computing center
staff, then who?  The faculty?  I suggest that the faculty member
cannot simply object to staff "police power" without also providing an
alternative for who will have the police power.

|> 
|> I'd like to see how this is handled in other documents, and to get feedback
|> from others on the balance between the absolute right of privacy, and the 
|> need of the staff to gather necessary information to ensure continued 
|> functioning and proper operation in a complex networked computing environment.

Herein lies a potential problem for you in creating policy and
enforcing it.  There is no absolute right of privacy.  There is a
limited right of privacy.  This means that while a person has an
expectation of privacy regarding their data files or information, there
are conditions under which a duly authorized person may access those
files without obtaining the owner's consent first.  The task for you
and your users is to define the conditions of access such that you can
balance the user's expectation of privacy with the need to keep the
system operating effectively.  Most legislation that deals with privacy
of information (e.g. Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Federal
Educational Records Privacy Act) works to create a balance between
privacy and need-to-know by authorized persons.  Since the privacy
rights of an individual are strong but limited, don't hinder yourself
unecessarily by starting off with the assumption that you must chip
away at an "absolute" right.  I also suggest that if you have not read
the two pieces of Federal legislation that I mentioned above, that you
do so.  They apply to your facility.  They will also give you valuable
insight into how the privacy vs. access balance is created and
maintained.

-- 
Joseph A. Watters, Jr.		jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign



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

From caf-talk Caf Sep 22 21:21:25 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: ldg@scott.skidmore.edu (Leo D. Geoffrion)
Subject: Article 12--Re: Computer use policy document
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 00:19:42 GMT

Your distinction between privacy and confidentiality is well put.

I'd like to offer a few additional thoughts.

1.  "Dragnets" are inappropriate management behavior.

Police do not have the right to search every home just because they
suspect that a criminal is hiding in one of them.  Likewise, system
managers should not sweep through large numbers of accounts looking
for suspicious code or messages.

2.  You must have reasonable suspicion.

Before police can search a home, they must obtain a search warrant
(excluding "hot pursuit" issues).  Likewise, you should need to
justify your suspicions to an outside body before you go digging into
someone's account.

3.  Use your established review groups.

Most universities have a student conduct board and many have some form
of Professional conduct committee for faculty/staff.  Use them to help
keep your practices in sync with the rest of the institution.

Here's our policy in a nutshell:

We only look at mail files with prior consent of the user.

If we suspect an intrusion or improper usage, we
   a.  backup all files to mag tape
   b.  Present our suspicions to the apprpriate committee
   c.  If they deem it appropriate, we examine the tapes to 
          document the violation and present our evidence to 
          the committee.
   d.  If they deem our suspicions without basis, we 
          recycle the tapes as usual.

Incidentally, there is also an escape clause for immediate system
crises (the equivalent of "hot pursuit"), but we are required to
consult with the committee as soon as possible thereafter.

So far, our policy has been formally adopted by the College, but has
not yet been tested by any actual incidents.  Faculty were very
pleased by the adoption process and appreciated the attempts to
integrate the practices into the established judicial procedures of
the college.
-- 
Leo Geoffrion, Skidmore College Computer Services, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
EMAIL: ldg@scott.skidmore.edu   VOICE: (518) 584-5000 Ext. 2919

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign



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

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