From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.35 (Digest)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:47:15 GMT

Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 02, No. 35


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

From: ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu (Adam C. Gross)
Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.35

[Week ending July 19, 1992

========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================

    [The editor of this issue is Adam C. Gross, ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu.]

Notes 1-3 are about the economic considerations of carrying alt.sex

1.  "A quick look at the Arbitron stats'll show that alt.sex is one of
the most popular groups on usenet... .Know what'd happen to my site's
disk-space if alt.sex was killed, assuming that I'm the only person
reading it?  Nothing.  I could, can, and will find a way to gate the
newsfeed into my e-mail. "
    <BAGCHI.92Jul12190204@dip.eecs.umich.edu>

2. "You seem to think that sites are being forced to pay for the newsgroups
you object to.  This is not the case.  Remember, Usenet is not an
official organization, but rather an informal congregation of sites that
share newsfeeds between each other."
    <1992Jul13.001349.12315@nntp.uoregon.edu>

3. "If one want to keep the good stuff in alt.sex, and weed out the
offensive stuff, someone's gonna have to read everything and expire said
articles -- this person doesn't work for free."
    <1992Jul13.133949.8564@hubcap.clemson.edu>

Notes 4 & 5 are about carrying alt.sex feeds across international boundaries.

4.  A user objects to the idea that what should be permisable should be
determined by recognizing guidlines imposed by  countries other than the
US. "Using this formula, the limits of what can be posted to USENET
would be the limits imposed by the strictest country who participates in
the net."
    <1992Jul13.142103.15845@spdcc.com>

5.  A Candian user argues that alt.sex is permisable by Candian law. 
"Under the Charter this expression is protected, and has as much
right to access to the medium as discussions of neutrino emmision or
neural networks..."
    <BrC0sz.Gu8@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>

Notes 6-8 are about the limits of free expression in .plan files

6.  "I recently put the lyrics to "Cop Killer" by Ice-T in my .plan file so
that it shows up when someone else does "finger jbw@cs.bu.edu".
Two people have complained to my department's chair... .He asked
me informally to remove it.  I told him I would not do so voluntarily."
    <JBW.92Jul16195814@bigbird.bu.edu>

7. "You do have the right to personal expression as delineated in the
First Amendment to the U.S.  Constitution.  You *do not* have the right
to demand that someone else supply you a venue for that expression. 
Your .plan file resides on University owned equipment."
    <1992Jul17.212641.18596@rice.edu>

8. "I believe academic freedom requires freedom of personal expression
because otherwise someone else gets to decide that my "academic
expression" is really just "personal expression".  That would seriously
harm academic freedom."
    <JBW.92Jul17231548@bigbird.bu.edu>

Note 9 is about the policy of charging user fees for access to the Internet.

9. A user in Chile: " Recently, all users of the Internet, including
universities, were notified that starting July 1st, there will be
a minimum monthly rate plus a charge per megabyte of international
traffic, with 18% sales tax on top."
    <9207152134.AA18513@jester.usask.ca>
]


In this issue:

                 55  >Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
John Martin      33  >
Mike Percy       40  >Surprise. Economic arguement vis net porn cost
Scott Moir       39  >Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Brad Shapcott    32  >
Joe Wells        35  putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Joseph Watters   84  >
Joe Wells        75  >
Earl Fogel       93  User fees for Internet use




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)

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 Jul 13 00:24:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Article 1--Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Date: 13 Jul 92 00:02:04 GMT

In article <BrAon9.L9D@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
>Well, I'm a student, and I read the net, and I have complaints. You
>say that no one is forcing them to read it, but the argument should be
>more aptly put as "is it a waste of money". There lies the question. Sure,
>I can unsubscribe from any crappy newsgroup I feel like, but can we
>merit the financial funding of illegal material that obviously offends
>and oversteps various legal bounds in one or more countries which we
>know USENET extends into? 
>Of course the contents of USENET are going shock people who are unfamiliar
>with it, because it is legalized pornography that is readily made available
>to the underage, via school-funded and government funded and whoever else
>funded media. In various ways, taxes are being used to fund those wonderful
>pictures that so many sweaty palmed individuals sift over. Yes, I exercise
>my right to not subscribe to these groups. However, can we justify diverting
>money (as little as it may be) towards these causes? there lies the question.
>At my university, as tuition is increasing (but still nothing like the
>American Colleges) there were students pushing for increased disk space on
>our machines, when some would be used for work perhaps, but much would
>be in archiving materials that were obtained via USENET for entertainment
>purposes. 

	I've got to save this as a canned response.  A quick look at
the Arbitron stats'll show that alt.sex is one of the most popular
groups on usenet.  In other words, we have met the perverts, and we are
them. Smell the coffee, squick the seals.

	What does that mean?  A waste of money?  Hardly, son. A huge
savings, instead.  Know what'd happen to my site's disk-space if
alt.sex was killed, assuming that I'm the only person reading it?
Nothing.  I could, can, and will find a way to gate the newsfeed into
my e-mail.  And since I suspect that I'm not the only person reading
this newsgroup, and what I could, can, and will do isn't much of
a feat, other people here'll be doing the exact same thing.  Of
course, they've got their own copy of the newsfeed, so twice the
needed space's being used.  I'd guess (conservatively) that at least
100 people here read alt.sex.

	And, what the pro-censorship mavens are going to have to
realize at some point is that when the stock in trade isn't ink
printed in suggestive patterns on paper anymore.. when it's not
videotape.. when it's not a greasy book.. but information, 1's and
0's, there's no way on earth to stop its flow.  None.  The nature of
information is it's movement, after all.  

	-rj

	

	
--
Ranjan Bagchi:   Di.sigsgvirusuise                 Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo


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

From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 00:24:46 1992
From: johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John Martin)
Subject: Article 2--Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 92 00:13:49 GMT

In article <BrAon9.L9D@cs.dal.ca>, franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:

>   Well, I'm a student, and I read the net, and I have complaints. You
>say that no one is forcing them to read it, but the argument should be
>more aptly put as "is it a waste of money". There lies the question. Sure,
>I can unsubscribe from any crappy newsgroup I feel like, but can we
>merit the financial funding of illegal material that obviously offends
>and oversteps various legal bounds in one or more countries which we
>know USENET extends into? 


You seem to think that sites are being forced to pay for the newsgroups
you object to.  This is not the case.  Remember, Usenet is not an
official organization, but rather an informal congregation of sites that
share newsfeeds between each other.  If a particular site doesn't want
to pay for a particular group, it doesn't carry it.  Simple as that.

But also remember, most universities attach via the Internet.  They pay
a flat fee for this service, and typically dedicate a machine or two to
act as news servers for the campus.  The result is that their bill will
*not* be reduced by a single cent by deciding not to carry any given
newsgroup!  The connection is paid for regardless, and the hardware
exists and consumes electricity regardless!  As I see it, no money is
being "wasted"!  The "recreational" groups are simply along for the
ride.


-- 
John Martin                                        johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu
Institute of Neuroscience,   University of Oregon,    Eugene, OR,    97402


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

From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 16:19:50 1992
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Article 3--Re: Surprise.  Economic arguement vis net porn cost
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 13:39:49 GMT

[oops, lost original author in an editor accident]
>   Of course the contents of USENET are going shock people who are unfamiliar
>with it, because it is legalized pornography that is readily made available
>to the underage, via school-funded and government funded and whoever else
>funded media. In various ways, taxes are being used to fund those wonderful
>pictures that so many sweaty palmed individuals sift over. Yes, I exercise
>my right to not subscribe to these groups. However, can we justify diverting
>money (as little as it may be) towards these causes? there lies the question.

It occurs to me that these sorts of arguements are useless.  With most
usenet functions automated (right?) it becomes far more costly to pay
someone to weed out these "offensive" articles.  It almost becomes an
all-or-nothing situation -- keep usenet or drop it (or keep a group or
drop it entirely).

Most sane people would agree that alt.sex does contain much useful
information that is not pornography.  To drop alt.sex would be a
disservice to many.  If one want to keep the good stuff in alt.sex, and
weed out the offensive stuff, someone's gonna have to read everything
and expire said articles -- this person doesn't work for free.  Also,
this person is now a censor.  Culling alt.sex still won't keep idiots
from crossposting to unrelated groups like sci.physics or
misc.jobs.offered, so all these other groups must be read and censored
as well.  Cheaper to just drop the whole thing isn't it?

Sorry, but cost arguements don't float.  They just try to distract the
issue from censorship.  The US government spends hundreds of millions of
dollars each year to fight child pornography and other obscenity laws.
They get very few convictions, and many of them are dismissed as
entrapment.  I hardly think it's worth it, considiring that the US
government is the countries biggest producer of child porn (for its
sting operations!).

Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)


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

From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 16:20:36 1992
From: pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir)
Subject: Article 4--Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 14:21:03 GMT

In article <BrAon9.L9D@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
>..........but the argument should be
>more aptly put as "is it a waste of money". There lies the question. Sure,
>I can unsubscribe from any crappy newsgroup I feel like, but can we
>merit the financial funding of illegal material that obviously offends
>and oversteps various legal bounds in one or more countries which we
>know USENET extends into? 

Using this formula, the limits of what can be posted to USENET would be
the limits imposed by the strictest country who participates in the net.
That kind of lowest common denominator thinking won't work very well. If
it REALLY breaks the laws in a given country, it should be up to the
powers that be in that country to stop the flow to its citizens. Telling
the rest of the world 'please don't talk about it' infringes on -our-
rights to do so.

>   At my university, as tuition is increasing (but still nothing like the
>American Colleges) there were students pushing for increased disk space on
>our machines, when some would be used for work perhaps, but much would
>be in archiving materials that were obtained via USENET for entertainment
>purposes. 

If you can justify a need for more disk space, then the school should see
about filling that need. However, I see no reason for a school to be forced
to provide space for non-educational purposes unless it has a surplus and 
-wants- to do it. That is more a policy of the school than anything to do 
with USENET. I have a 1 Meg limit for storage of personal stuff.. I get
along just fine.

Scott

-- 
Scott Moir / Pentangle / Satyr ______ # "There's really only one requirement 
pentangl@Ursa-Major.spdcc.com  \ \/ / #  for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+) s+ m r p+     \/\/  # "What's that?"
These are my opinions, not SPDCC's    # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbs


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

From caf-talk Caf Jul 13 16:20:57 1992
From: dbshapco@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Brad Shapcott)
Subject: Article 5--Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 14:41:21 GMT

In article <BrAon9.L9D@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve "edified" Franklin) writes:
> The media is a 
>business like anything else, and they will give the audience what it wants,
>rather than what it deserves. 

Well, actually, people are getting exactly what they deserve.  When one sits
around like a big couch potato (or is that potatoe?) waiting for every element
of one's life to be spoon fed into one, then this sort of slop is deserved
most richly.  Most news services seem to be slithering down to the level
of National Enquirer these days.

As for pornography, Steve, people really do (most) of these things that they
talk about, and they at least think them (ipso facto, if they post these
thoughts).  Under the Charter this expression is protected, and has as much
right to access to the medium as discussions of neutrino emmision or
neural networks, although I would agree at times the content of any newgroup
on a per article basis has little merit.  Sturgeon's Law, I guess.  But not
illegal.

[Our American cousins may substitute Constitution for Charter to Americanize
the above article.]

And please, before any large emotional demonstrations, march off to the
library's government publications section and read up on the Charter.  It
is one of the most significant documents in Canadian history, and yet most
Canadians seem to revel in ignorance of it.


Brad


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

From caf-talk Caf Jul 16 20:20:47 1992
From: jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 6--putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Date: 17 Jul 92 00:58:14 GMT

[this is a repost with an important addition superseding my original post]

Hi folks,

I recently put the lyrics to "Cop Killer" by Ice-T in my .plan file so
that it shows up when someone else does "finger jbw@cs.bu.edu".

Two people have complained to my department's chair.  (I presume they
demanded he "do something about this", but don't know for sure.)  He asked
me informally to remove it.  I told him I would not do so voluntarily.  I
expect that he will "do something", but don't know what.

I am seeking arguments to use against a possible attempt to censor me.
These possibilities occurred to me; I don't know how useful they might be:

* The university is accredited somewhere.  The accreditation might require
  some degree of academic freedom.
* I might be able to successfully cite the positions of the AAUP (I think
  that's the name).
* .plan files are a traditional (to the extent that anything related to a
  new technology is traditional) place for personal expression, including
  the display of song lyrics or poems.

Any arguments are welcome.  Keep in mind that Boston University is a
private school and hence the bill of rights doesn't apply.

-- 
Thanks,

Joe Wells <jbw@cs.bu.edu>

Member of the League for Programming Freedom --- send e-mail for details


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

From caf-talk Caf Jul 17 18:56:21 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jaw@is.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
Subject: Article 7--Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 21:26:41 GMT

In article <mumble>, jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes:
|> 
|> Hi folks,
|> 
|> I recently put the lyrics to "Cop Killer" by Ice-T in my .plan file so
|> that it shows up when someone else does "finger jbw@cs.bu.edu".

Why did you do this?  Do you agree with the sentiment expressed in the
lyrics, or are you just trying to provoke a "First
Amendment/censorship" argument at your University by deliberately
publicizing something that you know most people at the University would
find offensive and attempt to supress?  If it is the former, expect
people to disagree (vehemently) with your opinion, and they may use the
arguments that I outline below.  By the way, I did finger your account
to see exactly what you had put in your plan.

|> 
|> Two people have complained to my department's chair.  (I presume they
|> demanded he "do something about this", but don't know for sure.)  He asked
|> me informally to remove it.  I told him I would not do so voluntarily.  I
|> expect that he will "do something", but don't know what.
|> 
|> I am seeking arguments to use against a possible attempt to censor me.

Here's where you need to be careful.  There is an important distinction
to be made in your case.  You do have the right to personal expression
as delineated in the First Amendment to the U.S.  Constitution.  You
*do not* have the right to demand that someone else supply you a venue
for that expression.  Your .plan file resides on University owned
equipment.  The computer, disk, and network are not yours.  The
University certainly has the right to determine what does and does not
reside *on their computer*.  If someone who represents the University
tells you to remove the file, they are not denying you your right to
free expression, they are telling you that they will not provide, at
University cost, a venue for expression that they disagree with.  That
is perfectly within their property rights.

|> These possibilities occurred to me; I don't know how useful they might be:
|> 
|> * The university is accredited somewhere.  The accreditation might require
|>   some degree of academic freedom.

Academic freedom and freedom of personal expression are not the same
thing.  This is particularly true when the personal expression is not
related to academic pursuit.  Academic freedom is the freedom to
pursue any line of inquiry or study, not the freedom to say whatever
the hell you want, no matter how offensive.  I recognize that many
University faculty have a much broader interpretation of academic
freedom. 

|> * I might be able to successfully cite the positions of the AAUP (I think
|>   that's the name).

|> * .plan files are a traditional (to the extent that anything related to a
|>   new technology is traditional) place for personal expression, including
|>   the display of song lyrics or poems.
|> 

Yes, it is a traditional venue for personal expression, but as I said,
its someone else's dollar that makes the venue, so they have a
legitimate right to determine what expression takes place on that
venue.

|> Any arguments are welcome.  Keep in mind that Boston University is a
|> private school and hence the bill of rights doesn't apply.
|> 

I am at a private University also, and I thought the same thing.  The
folks at EFF will be happy to supply you with all sorts of case law
that demonstrates that a lot more of the legal tenets of the U.S.
apply to BU than you might think.

|> Joe Wells <jbw@cs.bu.edu>
|> 
|> Member of the League for Programming Freedom --- send e-mail for details

-- 
Joseph A. Watters, Jr.		jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet
Rice University
Houston, Texas


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

From caf-talk Caf Jul 17 23:36:03 1992
From: jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 8--Re: putting lyrics to "Cop Killer" in .plan file
Date: 18 Jul 92 04:15:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul17.212641.18596@rice.edu> jaw@is.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:

   Why did you do this?

Irrelevant.

   Do you agree with the sentiment expressed in the
   lyrics, or are you just trying to provoke a "First
   Amendment/censorship" argument at your University by deliberately
   publicizing something that you know most people at the University would
   find offensive and attempt to supress?

With the "sentiment"?  Yes.  With the specific message?  No.  When I first
quoted the lyrics in my .plan it did not occur to me that anyone would
complain.

   You do have the right to personal expression as delineated in the First
   Amendment to the U.S.  Constitution.  You *do not* have the right to
   demand that someone else supply you a venue for that expression.  Your
   .plan file resides on University owned equipment.  The computer, disk,
   and network are not yours.  The University certainly has the right to
   determine what does and does not reside *on their computer*.

First, congratulations, you seem to understand perfectly why I came here
asking for help!  Second, I think you are talking about legal rights,
while I am seeking arguments that might invoke moral rights or some other
form of pressure on the university.  Third, keep in mind that I am a
tuition and fee paying student.  Fourth, under Massachusetts law, it turns
out that I may actually have the right.

   If someone who represents the University tells you to remove the file,
   they are not denying you your right to free expression, they are
   telling you that they will not provide, at University cost, a venue for
   expression that they disagree with.  That is perfectly within their
   property rights.

B.U. derives most if not all of its operating income from tuition; I pay
tuition.  Thus, the "at university cost" argument isn't very strong; I'm
not really worried about it.  Also, fortunately, you are probably
incorrect about censorship being within their property rights.  Several
people have informed me already of a wonderful Massachusetts law that may
prevent B.U. from preventing free expression.  In fact, this law has been
used against B.U. before in Abromowitz vs. B.U.

   Academic freedom and freedom of personal expression are not the same
   thing.  This is particularly true when the personal expression is not
   related to academic pursuit.  Academic freedom is the freedom to
   pursue any line of inquiry or study, not the freedom to say whatever
   the hell you want, no matter how offensive.

I believe academic freedom requires freedom of personal expression because
otherwise someone else gets to decide that my "academic expression" is
really just "personal expression".  That would seriously harm academic
freedom.

   Yes, it is a traditional venue for personal expression, but as I said,
   its someone else's dollar that makes the venue ...

It's my dollar!

   The folks at EFF will be happy to supply you with all sorts of case law
   that demonstrates that a lot more of the legal tenets of the U.S.
   apply to BU than you might think.

Indeed, we are most fortunate.

-- 
Thanks,

Joe Wells <jbw@cs.bu.edu>

Member of the League for Programming Freedom --- send e-mail for details


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

From caf-talk Caf Jul 15 17:36:29 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: fogel@jester.usask.ca (Earl Fogel)
Subject: Article 9--User fees for Internet use
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 09:34:25 GMT

I thought the members of this group might be interested in the following
article, recently posted to CANADA-L.

Earl Fogel
-------------------------------------------------------------------

>Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 14:35:52 CHT
>From: pmason@chasqui.mic.cl (Patricio Mason)
>Subject: Internet charges

A while ago, several members of the list debated the issue of user fees for
access to computer networks such as the Internet.  Most were rightly
adamant that charging for use would have an incalculably detrimental
effect.  I thought you might like to know that here in Chile this scenario
has suddenly become reality.  

Our Internet hookup is run by CONICYT, (National Council on Science and
Technology) a government body.  Recently, all users of the Internet,
including universities, were notified that starting July 1st, there will be
a minimum monthly rate plus a charge per megabyte of international traffic,
with 18% sales tax on top.  This is a reversal of an earlier decision
whereby only a flat rate was charged, regardless of traffic.  Both the
minimum rate and the charge per megabyte are measured in units roughly
equivalent to CDN$31.00 each, i.e., 10 MB of traffic equals CDN$310.00,
plus the minimum rate, plus tax.  To place things in perspective, the
minimum monthly wage in this country is 38,000 pesos, roughly CDN$134.00.

Although the CONICYT decision was sanctioned by Chile's Council of Rectors
(university and college presidents), the academic community and other users
such as NGOs, non-profit groups and private individuals are stunned and
outraged.  Needless to say, most university presidents are not users and
simply chose from a set of options presented to them by administrators and
CONICYT functionaries.    

This may very well mean that university professors will have to clear it
with department heads before replying to a colleague abroad.  Since every
byte will cost universities a pretty penny, it may also mean that students
will be prevented from generating or accepting international traffic.  Few
will be allowed to do FTP or Telnet.  For outside e-mail users such as
private individuals and non-profit groups, the high cost will probably
entail reducing or eliminating use altogether.  

Access to the Internet is slightly wider here.  High rates mean that only
those who can afford them, i.e., government and corporate users, will have
the run of the system.  Although one of the consequences of the worldwide
computer revolution has been to empower the individual as a counterbalance
to the unbridled power of governments and corporations, the CONICYT
decision in Chile means that those outside the circles of political or
financial power will be left out.

There is no Internet affiliate that I know of which charges on the basis of
traffic volume.  Universities are reeling from the implications: just
figuring out who is to be billed for what, plus the processing and billing
aspects, will most certainly prove an administrative nightmare.  A whole
new bureaucracy will have to be created at CONICYT and elsewhere to handle
this.

There is a write-in campaign on to try to get CONICYT to reverse this
decision and discard the notion of charging per amount of traffic.  Along
with members of the academic community within Chile, the members of CHILE-L
--Chilean academics, students and others scattered throughout the world--
are leading this campaign.

As a member of CANADA-L and Internet user, I thought I'd tell you of this
and try to enlist your support.  If this type of mentality is allowed to
prevail, it will certainly set a precedent.  If you would like to help,
please write a respectful note to CONICYT, the National Council on Science
and Technology, stating your views on this issue.  Notes should be sent to
Mr. Alberto Cabezas at 

acabezas@uchdciux.seci.uchile.cl

CONICYT may also be reached at: 

Canada 308  
2o Piso 
Providencia
Santiago, Chile
Tel.:   (562) 274-4537, 204-7541, 204-7542, 204-7566

I'll be glad to provide further information to anyone interested.
Thanks in advance.

Patricio Mason
Santiago, Chile
pmason@chasqui.mic.cl
--

Earl Fogel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
fogel@sask.usask.ca		Computing Services, Room 56 Physics
Phone: (306) 966-4861		University of Saskatchewan
Fax:   (306) 966-4938		Saskatoon, Sask. CANADA, S7N 0W0
-------------------------------------------------------------------




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

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