From: bfh@b15.b15.ingr.com (Burgess Howell)
Subject: Re: ATTENTION: All people who received a crack for Alchemy!!!
Organization: Intergraph, Huntsville AL
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 19:53:24 GMT

In <1992Apr8.202636.3030@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:

>From article <1992Apr7.191654.29459@b15.b15.ingr.com>, by bfh@b15.b15.ingr.com (Burgess Howell):
>> In <1992Apr4.041843.20449@uwasa.fi> ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr3.161146.13397@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:

>> So, to follow this to its logical conclusion, the university is not
>> interested in the free and unencumbered distribution of constitutionally
>> protected information -- or the protection of the rights of one of its
>> students who dared to exercise his rights.  Rather, it feels it is in
>> its best interest to censure the student and distance itself from
>> a civil suit in which it would have to admit that, when it comes right
>> down to it, it is not in the business of disseminating information -- 
>> it is in the business of counting beans.

>I don't know how that became a logical conclusion.  In an emergency, I
>may have to choose between spending a little money and saving my
>child's life.  That doesn't mean I'm "not interested" in money.

Perhaps I should have said "...the university is not _seriously_
interested," or, perhaps "...sufficiently interested," or how about
"...the university lacks the foresight to be interested."  But, no
matter.  This is not an emergency (as I see it), and my point is that
rather than defend the student (who has contracted with the university
which disseminates information -- which you admit a few lines down from here
_is_ the business of a university) who probably has broken no laws
whatsoever, the university chose to immediately revoke the student's
system access and take him to task for innocent actions. (We do still
presume innocence, don't we, or is that just some arcane/outdated notion
of criminal law?)

>I'm glad the "business of disseminating information" was mentioned.
>Yes, a university is in business.  As such, it has to respect the
>rights of other businesses.  Disseminating information is not always
 ^^^^^^

No argument here, except that I don't think we have established that the
_rights_ of another business were violated.  As you pointed out in an
earlier post, the student may have behaved impolitely.  The last I
heard, there were no laws enforcing etiquette.

>a good thing to do.  There are, for instance such things as military
>secrets, issues of privacy, trade secrets....

These are the "few exceptions" I alluded to in my post.  I think we both
understand these are not at issue in this discussion.

>So a university does its business where it will be _paid_ to
>disseminate information, not where it will be _sued_ for it.

The university also implicitly contracts with individuals to provide
certain services which will allow the student to take advantage of the
knowledge base within the university.  The student pays -- the
university provides.  When these services are provided as a tool to
further the student's education, the university opens itself to suit if
it capriciously revokes a student's access.  Damned if they do, damned
if they don't -- but I would rather see the university come down on the
side of free and unfettered exchange of information (except in cases of
those "few exceptions" mentioned earlier, and I may even waver on some
of the privacy issues).  Doesn't this have anything to do with the
ideals of education, some higher purpose to which educational
institutions should aspire? 

>[ Timo Salmi wonders about ... ]
>>>.... the, to me a strange stress on the US first amendment
>>>interpreted as giving the right to anyone to have anything
>>>distributed without regard who owns the facilities used.   
>> 
>> I think two points should be made here.  First, in the US, the law says
>> that if an act is not specifically prohibited, it is allowed (pretty scary,
>> huh?).  The transfer of information is still (with very few exeptions)
>> legal in this country.  Next, the information was distributed by an
>> electronic mail service provided by the university to the students.  One
>> must assume that the university knew the service would be utilized by
>> the students.  One must also assume that a university administration is
>> not so naive as to believe no controversial information would pass
>> through their mail system.  Ergo, if the university is truly interested in
>> removing itself from the possibility of civil suits, it should _not_ be
>> allowing those naughty students to talk to the rest of the world.

>God allegedly granted man free will, and then punished man for using
>it wrongly.  Surely a university is not wiser than God?

And if you buy into that story, you must also realize that, since God is
omniscient, He _knew_ beforehand exactly what would occur.  As I
understand it, He must have had some plan in mind.  No, I don't expect
the university to be wiser than God.  I just expect them to draw on a
vast base of experience and realize what goes on.  There is still no
doubt in my mind that any university administration in this country has
a very accurate idea of what is being passed around on its computer
system.  My comment concerning naivete stands. 

>The university is, after all, in the business of disseminating
>information.  

Thank you for allowing me that one small point :^)

>In the pursuit of that business, it allows students to
>use its facilities to exchange information.  The students are expected
>to show reasonable restraint in the way they use those facilities, 

My definition of "reasonable restraint" is bound to be quite different
from yours, the university administration's, and a court's.  I hate to
see someone hung out to dry on one of those "and other behavior which
may be deemed inappropriate" clauses.

>and
>to respect the "very few exceptions" mentioned above.  Controversial
>information is OK, but when a student steps over the fuzzy line and
>does something inappropriate, that student, and only that one, is
>expected to suffer the consequences.

As implied above, I haven't seen the fuzzy line being crossed.

>There is no one principle that guides one's every action, unless it be
>one like "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you," which
>has to be analyzed into more specific principles.  Certainly neither
>"freedom of speech" nor "property rights" is a universal principle.
>Compromises must be made, even if only in the interest of survival.

>I thought all this was obvious, but I guess it has to be spelled out.

It was quite obvious.  My stand on this matter is that if compromise
must be made, it should favor the side of reinforcement and expansion, not
restriction, of liberty.  The curtailment of information exchange is a
far more serious infringement than the (as yet unproven) loss of property
rights.  Examine the laws of our nation and you will find many more
avenues by which you may dispossess a person of his property than means
by which you may circumscribe his speech.  This is as it should be.

I still contend that a university has a vested interest in maintaining
these proportions by _encouraging_, not discouraging actions around your
"fuzzy line."

>>>For
>>>example when I refused to have a certain suspect package on our FTP
>>>archives (about a year ago) the (US) author complained to me with a
>>>straight face that I was depriving him of his lawful _right_ of
>>>distributing his shareware material. 
>> 
>> And you were completely within your rights, Timo.  An archive site is
>> not UseNet or e-mail.  It's YOUR disk space which you graciously make
>> available to people around the world (and we thank you for it).  Use it
>> as you please.

>You think so, Timo thinks so, I think so.  But Timo's point is that

Watch out, Marty.  That's twice we've agreed here.  Feeling anarchistic
yet? :^)

>the "(US) author" did not think so.  That does not in itself prove
>anything, but it is remarkable.

What it proves is that a garden variety ignoramus can string together
enough code to make a program.  Nothing more.

>							Marty
>marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
>Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	

							Burgess
----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Burgess Howell * Intergraph Corporation * bfh@b15.b15.ingr.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing