From: feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: Engineering Research Associates, Vienna, VA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:05:38 GMT

On  comp.admin.policy, sbrack@jupiter (Steven S. Brack) posts:
 > 
 > : feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit) writes:
 > : > True, plenty of other stuff (reading news, etc.) goes on and the
 > : >rule isn't enforced when the outside activities don't interfere with
 > : >those who are using their accounts to the end for which they were
 > : >issued.
 > 
 > 	   "We'll hold this club over your head, but as long as you don't
 > 	    upset us, we won't use it."  Selective enforcement of the rules
 > 	    has never been good policy, because it is too open to abuse.
 > 	    The same rule must be applied to everyone, everytime, the same
 > 	    way.  Anything else engenders special privelege. 

Okay, Steve, let's look at that from the other end of the spectrum:

	"I have this rule here against xyz, and I've got every
	intention of enforcing the hell out of it.  To do that, I'm
	going to watch your every move while within ten feet of any of
	my hardware, demand an inspection of the source for every
	program you wish to run before you are permitted to execute
	it, screen your e-mail, et cetera.  This means, of course,
	that you don't get anything done in a decent amount of time
	because you're busy getting your every move approved, and I
	don't get anything done because I'm busy crawling up your tail
	with a microscope. But by God that rule against xyz is going
	to be enforced, and nobody's going to slip through the
	cracks."

If that's the way you think everything should be enforced, you're
living in the wrong country.  Selective enforcement goes on every day.
Look at traffic.  If we tried to eliminate it by stationing a police
officer every quarter-mile on every street to catch and enforce
EVERYTHING, none of us would ever make it to work in the morning.
There's a tradeoff here: Society won't keep you under constant
scrutiny, and in exchange society expects you to be responsible enough
to follow the rules.  They call that SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, and it's
something I think a lot of people in this country have lost sight of.

 > : >  But you're still using the university's resources.  If you
 > : >keep doing something you've been asked to stop because it eats
 > : >resources others need to use, then as far as I'm concerned they've got
 > : >all the right in the world to pull the rug out from under you and
 > : >start due process.  I don't see why due process can't start _after_
 > : >the rug pulling, since the perpetrator likely to keep pulling the same
 > : >stunts if the account remains in place.
 > : [...]
 > 	   The same reason that persons accused of crimes should be released
 > 	   on reasonable bail whenever possible.

People get released on bail under the assumption they're not likely to
repeat the same crime while they're out.  But you can bet your bottom
dollar that bail will be revoked if they're arrested for the same
thing.  And if you're denied bail and tossed in the clink until your
trial comes up, you're still being deprived of your rights to go out
and frolic as you please without instant due process.  (Perhaps the
time is ripe for the Court of Appeals on Wheels?)

 >         The denial of computing
 > 	   resources is a punishment, whether intended that way or not. 

Bull.  Same story as above.  Re-read what I wrote:

	"If you keep doing something you've been asked to stop because
	 it eats resources others need to use..."

I really don't have any problem with asking somebody to stop doing
something that's "against the rules" -- the first time around.  I'm
always willing to forgive an innocent mistake even when ignorance of
the rules is involved.  But if I'm heard and ignored, it crosses over
the line and becomes intentional.  And THAT, I believe, is where
"selective enforcement" comes into play in this case.  Ever drop
something you were holding in frontof a police officer and got a
ticket for littering before you were able to bend over and pick it up?
I didn't think so.  That's selective enforcement.

There's a trade-off (yes, another one) of responsibility for freedom
once you start dealing with the freedoms of others.  If you've got a
system of your own (and that's not "somebody else's but all to
yourself," BTW) you're free to make your own rules and do whatever the
heck you feel like.  But once you've agreed to share that system with
others, you're responsible for making sure you don't deny someone else
their rights by your actions -- especially when that someone else has
chipped in the same share you have to have a subset of the freedoms
they'd have on their own systems if they had them.  Again, SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY.

 > : >As for having the right to express yourself, you've got it.  But as
 > : >was pointed out in another thread on another newsgroup, just because
 > : >you've got the right to express yourself doesn't mean that others have
 > : >to provide the soap box.
 >
 > 	   But many public universities still have codes restricting these
 > 	   speakers, & restricting the character of the meetings.  e.g.:
 > 	   1) Communist Party meetings, or
 > 	   2) Gay student organizations' meetings.
 > 
 > 	 These have most often been prohibited on the grounds that
 >	 their purpose is the discussion of illegal acts. 

That's true.  And as long as the organizations are recognized by the
university and nothing illegal is going on (conspiring counts here,
IMHO), I can't agree with those policies either.  (Does the U of T
have a Criminal Justice club?  Do they discuss illegal acts?)  But
that's an entirely different issue, which I'll leave for another
thread on another newsgroup.


						- Mark

 ................................. .................................
: Mark A. Feit             KD4TAJ : Internet: feit@era.com          :
: Engineering Research Associates : USENET: ...!uunet!era!feit      :
 ................................. .................................
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy