From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.29 (Digest)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:43:53 GMT

Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 02, No. 29


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

From: emr@eff.org (Elizabeth M. Reid)
Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.29

[Week ending 21st June, 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.
===============================================================

[#28 is in production]

Notes 1 to 3 concern how universal the right to freedom of speech
should be - in particular whether it should be allowed to "fascists"
and "holocaust revisionists".

1. "Freedom of expression isn't a luxury to be denied until we reach a
perfect society; it is instead our best [way] of perfecting (or at
least improving) society."
    <1992Jun16.220303.28270@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

2. Censorship is not the best way to combat the irresponsible and
untrue statements made by holocaust revisionists. Intelligent
refutation is far more effective - although the nature of the
statements themselves is as damning as any counter-argument.
    <1992Jun19.061006.23999@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>

3. "What good is fighting for ideals if you destroy those ideals in
the fight? If your idea of a "perfect" world doesn't include freedom
of expression I want no part of it... If we want the network to be
treated as a common carrier, then at least for pay services [we] have
no right to censor based on content alone."
    <1992Jun19.084539.1206@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>


Notes 4 to 6 discuss how users should deal with being offended while
using the Internet, and how system administrators should respond to
users who can't deal with it.

4. A guide to dealing with offensive or abusive email and news 
messages, with the emphasis being on tolerance, kill files and mail 
filters.
   <1992Jun17.052430.20515@uwasa.fi>

5. The "Standard Manager's Reply" (Revision A), to be sent to users
complaining about the content of the e-mail or newsgroup posting of a
subscriber to the manager's system, espouses the delights of freedom
of expression, clear thinking, and kill files.
    <6980@public.BTR.COM>

6. Comments on and criticisms of the "Standard Manager's Reply".
    <!d@byu.edu>


Notes 7 and 8 concern the rights of system administrators to access
users' accounts.

7. "You are given an account with the understanding that you will not
use it to attempt to crack the system. But if you use that account to
learn the passwords of other users, then you are abusing the trust
placed in you by the system administrator, and he can remove your
access for it."
    <1992Jun18.200126.486@newshost.lanl.gov>

8. "The reasoning was something like the computer was like a hotel and
the account a room in it.  The files were like drawers or coatracks.
We had the right to enter and look at anything as we owned the
'premises'."
    <1992Jun19.065554.8876@eff.org>


Notes 9 to 11, although unrelated, each address the issues of free
speech and censorship.

9. The New York Times of 6/10/92 reported that a Williams College
student has been subpoenaed after refusing refusing to talk with
Secret Service agents about a computer message he had written which
contained a "death threat" against George Bush.
    <1992Jun11.001601.29258@morrow.stanford.edu>

10. As reported in the University of Toronto _Bulletin_, that
university is not planning to intercept or censor any of the files
available on the Internet that may contain violent pornographic
material.
    <1992Jun16.045026.15800@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>

11. "I do _not_ want to restrict anybody's right to post or read
whatever they wish, nor am I trying to accommodate or compromise with
those who do.  I just want _for myself_ some additional means for
selecting what I want to read."
    <TT.92Jun18161558@tarzan.jyu.fi>



- Elizabeth]


In this issue:

Carl M. Kadie    87  >NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Ken Mcvay        56  >
Lawrence Foard   45  >
Timo Salmi      109  >Protest of offensive message
                 36  Standard Mngr's Reply Rev. A
Jamie Gritton    48  >standard managers reply
John C. Fowler   24  >Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Brian D. Howard  32  >
Clifford Johnson 23  Net Threat
pkern            87  U of Toronto reaction
Tapani Tarvainen 45  >would this be censorship?


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 Jun 16 18:22:33 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 1--Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 22:03:03 GMT

phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

[...]
               Freedom of speech is an ideal worth fighting for and it would be
one of the fundamental principles of a fair, socialist society. But we don't
live in a fair society yet; the majority of society, the poor, the working
class and the oppressed don't have the same freedom of speech as the rich and
powerful. Trying to correct that inbalance is something we should all fight
for. But, in my opinion, freedom of speech isn't something fascists should be
allowed to have. THROW THEM OFF THE NET.

               
                        Tony Hartin
                        International Socialist Organisation
                        Monash University

Freedom of expression isn't a luxury to be denied until we reach a
perfect society; it is instead our best want of perfecting (or at
least improving) society.

Ironically, your organization would have been banned from my campus in
the 1950's. Why? Because the State of Illinois believed, as you
believe, that viewpoints contrary to the public good should be
suppressed.

The 1950 Code on Student Affairs said: "Article 4 - Unrecognized
Organizations -- V. Section 13 -- Forbidden Organizations --
Organizations with purposes or practices contrary to morality, to
education, or to public or University welfare, or with a secret
membership will not be permitted to exist on the campus."

In 1958, an administrative order of the Univeristy President set down
rules for visiting speakers. Like your article it pays lip service
to free expression. Like your article it then dismisses it.

   'The University of Illinois Statutes (Section 39a) state, "It is
the policy of the University to maintain and encourage full freedom
within the law, of inquiry, discourse, teaching, research, and
publication ..." Consistent with this policy the Senate Committee on
Visiting Speakers will maintain the tradition of full freedom of
discourse for visiting speakers within the limitations imposed by law,
rules of the Board of Trustees, University regulations, and the
welfare of the University.

   1. Subversive Organizations. The Illinois Statutes provide [...]:
No Trustee, official, instructor, or other employee of the University
of Illinois shall extend to any subversive, seditious, and un-American
organization, or to its representatives, the use of any facilities of
the University for the purpose of carrying on, advertising, or
publicizing the activities of such organization."'

Personally, I doubt that utopias are even possible. But I'm confident
that when expression is suppressed we move farther from, not closer
to, the ideal.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
reg2rights
=================
The history of student regulations at the University of Illinois
from 1904 to present. Shows how policies evolve.

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

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

  pub/academic/reg2rights

To get the files 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 reg2rights

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


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 02:44:15 1992
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 2--Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Date: 19 Jun 92 06:10:06 GMT

In article <1992Jun19.115436.89181@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

>             Ah, but that's not my idea of censorship. I'm for a mass movement
>of net users to get rid of the fascists. My posting was designed to provoke a
>debate, not an act of god from system administrators.  My argument is that 
>the left should unite to get rid of the fascists; the idea of free speech for
>fascists has been a demobilising factor for the left historically. If,
>ultimately, net users as a mass demand that system adminstrators remove access
>rights for persistent revisionists, then so be it. The left after all doesn't
>refuse to support wage rises for workers because we think this will increase
>the power of the state.

I believe it would be a grave mistake to force the Holocaust-deniers off
the net. There are far more effective means at hand to deal with their
peculiar brand of filth.

First, given the quality of the material generated from b-cpu, and the
nature of the audience they are presenting it to, I would recommend that we
do anything and everything to keep their link viable. Their utterances are,
after all, damning evidence of the most effective sort, and make it clear
to any and all that they are dealing with a movement that attracts to its
ranks the mentally lame - folks utterly devoid of self-respect, education,
intelligence, and a shred of civil merit. The more effectively they are
refuted, the more crude and offensive they become - would you deprive the
net of this most satisfying observation, and drive the vermin underground,
just to satisfy a political agenda?

Second, we have not yet taken full advantage of the opportunity these inept
fools have placed before us - we have a golden opportunity to learn rather
more than they would like to tell us about the nazi movement - chasing them
away would serve little purpose, and close several doors to those who would
prefer them to remain open.

Third, it is my belief that these people are _dangerous_, and the longer
they hang around spewing their filth, the more observers will arrive at the
same conclusion. In short, they themselves have provided the impetus needed
to organize resistance on a world-wide scale, and I (for one) would like to
see that resistance grow to the point where they are no longer able to
publish their bullshit without having enormous resources brought to bear.

No, I'm not talking about "Zionist Thought Police," or any of the other
offensive phrases these folks count upon for use as effective emotional
triggers, I'm talking about "just plain people," co-operating because, like
me, they find these vermin an offense against civilization.

Let's keep them around a bit longer, in the certain hope they will continue
to make fools of themselves, eh?

-- 
"(Later , I was to learn that we were at Bergen-Belsen; that this hastily
 built camp beside a firing range had been occupied, until our arrival, by
 women, and that it needed no gas chambers because death came by another
 route, that of phenol injections into the heart.)" Fania Fenelon - p240.


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 05:43:09 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Article 3--Re: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR FASCISTS/REVISIONISTS
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 08:45:39 GMT

In article <1992Jun19.115436.89181@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>> A reasonable conclusion based on your analysis is that we should not
>> give governments, universities, etc the authority to censor the right
>> wing because they will use that authority to censor the left wing even
>> more.
>
>             Ah, but that's not my idea of censorship. I'm for a mass movement
>of net users to get rid of the fascists. 

Mob rule is a form of "government".

>My posting was designed to provoke a
>debate, not an act of god from system administrators.  My argument is that 
>the left should unite to get rid of the fascists; the idea of free speech for
>fascists has been a demobilising factor for the left historically. 

What good is fighting for ideals if you destroy those ideals in the fight?
If your idea of a "perfect" world doesn't include freedom of expression
I want no part of it.

This isn't to say someone can say absolutely anything, threatening people
and the like is something else, and of course there is nothing wrong with
holding someone to an offer such as the $50,000 offered. 

>If,
>ultimately, net users as a mass demand that system adminstrators remove access
>rights for persistent revisionists, then so be it. 
 ^^^^^^

If we want the network to be treated as a common carrier, then atleast for
pay services have no right to censor based on content alone. 

>The left after all doesn't
>refuse to support wage rises for workers because we think this will increase
>the power of the state.

If your version of "left" is a dictatorship no thanks.
-- 
Tired of Microsoft hype? Try Linux the only real OS for the 386/486  ______
that costs less than your computer does. ftp tsx-11.mit.edu          \    /
cd pub/linux and say goodbye Messy-Loss and 1/2 an OS.                \  /
   -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support, Resumes, Etc.--    \/


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 17 10:47:32 1992
From: ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi)
Subject: Article 4--Re: Protest of offensive message
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 05:24:30 GMT

In article <1992Jun17.003111.3598@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> by403@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>A recent exchange of e-mail messages with ...

-From: garbo.uwasa.fi:/pc/ts/tsfaq29.zip Frequently Asked Questions
>Subject: What to do about abusive messages
>Date: Fri 12 Jun 00:00:10 1992

11. *****
 Q: How should I react to abusive email or postings?

   There is one further category of problematic net behavior to
point out, that is overly aggressive or abusive postings or email.
These are often written in the heat of the moment, or under the
influence. Or they may result from outright misunderstandings,
because this is not an easy media for conveying subtleties. Also
remember that UseNet is an international net, and not everyone is
fluent in English. On top of that, there are cultural differences in
expressing wishes and views. (For example, I've noticed that email
from one cultural background tends to be abrupt, while another
sometimes seems to be lacking in consideration in asking services
from others). Or someone may have a completely different sense of
humor from yours. The reasons for angry postings can be many, and
the only solid deduction that can be drawn from a single abusive
posting is that someone has truly bad manners or a totally off-key
day. The best way to react is either to reply politely, or not to
reply at all. (There is no sense in responding in the same manner,
and being just another jerk).
   I'll give you an example concerning incompatible humor. I have a
predilection for trying to come up with puns in English, and this is
not always liked. There was a discussion in the news.groups
demanding why an infertility group had not passed in the news. I
just couldn't resist the temptation, and remarked that perhaps it
was because the idea was barren :-). One user obviously had real
personal strife with infertility, and told me to shove the Smiley,
you know where, in as many words.
   To give another example, here is a counter-xenophobic joke
guaranteed to bring flames crashing in from some US users. "There
was this American who was asked wasn't he ever annoyed by the fact
that he didn't really have a language of his very own but had to
speak English. The reply. If English was good enough for Jesus, it's
certainly good enough for me." Seriously, though. Although it is
fortunately very rare, sometimes one encounters netters from the US,
who do not seem to be able quite to grasp the international nature
of the InterNet.
   Here is a story of a case of mutual misunderstanding turning out
right. I sent a note to a user who posted test messages to a
discussion newsgroup, and told him that he shouldn't, and pointed
out that there are special newsgroups just for testing purposes. I
got a very testy (pardon the pun) reply referring to my attitude as
smart-ass. But we started discussing about it, and soon noticed
that: 1) he had misread my intentions, 2) that my message was badly
formulated and gave rise to the possibility of taking it just as an
impolite flame. What happened was that we together worked out a
better formulation for my prerecorded advice on test post (see item
#17), and we both benefited from the process, and enjoyed it.
   If someone continues to post to the UseNet news in a language
that offends you, perhaps the best action is simply not to read any
postings from that person.  Most newsreader programs have what is
called a kill file, where you can specify which subjects or persons
you wish to ignore. (And speaking more generally than just about
offensive postings, I would like to put forward here that unless you
are seriously involved with the maintenance of the relevant
newsgroup, if you do not like someone's posting habits, you should
seriously consider the option of using the kill file. Express your
views by all means, but long-standing UseNet experience tells that
attacking will not achieve anything).
   What to do if the abusive individual persists sending you one
unwelcome message after another, or keeps on harassing you in some
other way. Persisting cases are perhaps best tackled by just
deleting _unread_ all the email and postings from that address. I
apply this method myself, although fortunately I have needed this
drastic option extremely seldom so far.
   Another understandable, but problematic situation is when one
gets flamed for something one didn't say or do. This sometimes
happens eg when one quotes in the news an offensive posting, and
consequently someone confuses who said what. For example one of my
perfectly neutral postings included a quote from a third person
castigating American freedom in an obviously unfriendly fashion. In
consequence I got a rather indignant message from a reader who
mistook the quote as my opinion. We finally sorted it out to a
friendly conclusion, but much unnecessary effort was involved.
   The more general lesson from the last item above is to be careful
not to confuse the original poster, and the person who is replying
to the posting. It unfortunately happens relatively often that when
I answer a question in the news, someone emails a reply to the
original question mistakenly to me, not to the original poster where
the reply should be directed. And I have been guilty of a similar
mistake myself a couple of times.
   As an archive site moderator getting much email, and having been
quite active on the UseNet news I am exposed to the possibility of
overly aggressive behavior perhaps even more than the average user.
Therefore I store messages and the addresses of the intentionally
offensive and hostile individuals for future reference in order to
be able to try to steer clear of such hotheads. It is thoroughly
frustrating that when one tries to help eg by giving information on
the charter of a newsgroup, as a result one gets back a message that
has been devised with the sole intention of heaping deliberate
insults. In December of 1991 I had such an unfortunate incident
involving the comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d newsgroup.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

..................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi
Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous FTP archives 128.214.87.1
Faculty of Accounting & Industrial Management; University of Vaasa
Internet: ts@uwasa.fi Bitnet: salmi@finfun   ; SF-65101, Finland


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 13:26:42 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Article 5--Standard Mngr's Reply Rev. A
Date: 10 Jun 92 13:56:32 GMT

The"Standard Manager's Reply" sent to people
complaining about the content of the e-mail or newsgroup
posting of a subscriber to the manager's system, Rev. A.                                             
                                                                            

"(1) This system believes in freedom of expression
within the bounds of the law;
              
                   
(2) If you do not like the content of an individuals
newsgroup posting, then read your newreader's
manual entry on how to use the "killfile";                                   


(3) If you do not like the content of an individuals
e-mail, then feel free to delete it without reading it. 
Continued e-mail after explicit requests to stop may
constitute harassment.  Inquire among your local
authorities.


(4) If you believe the content of a posting is contrary 
to law, then inform the proper authorities;


(5) System managers are not the court of last resort
in case you are losing an argument on the net.  Refer
to "The Art of Clear Thinking" by Rudolph Flesch,
"Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument" by Ward
Fearnside or other similar book for more information
on how to argue without whining to your parents."


-- 
Grady Ward    grady@btr.com    KD6ETH/AA @ K6LY    Moby Lexicons


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 13:26:42 1992
Date: Mon,  8 Jun 92 09:08:14 MDT
From: gritton@alaska.caedm.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Article 6--Re: standard managers reply

grady@btr.BTR.COM (Grady Ward  grady@btr.com) writes:

> (1) This system believes in freedom of speech within     
> the bounds of the law;

   But if it's a private machine, the bounds of the law don't force
the owner to propagate potentially offensive messages. I say
"potentially offensive" because that way a system manager may restrict
all mail based on reports of offensive mail without actually reading
any of the accused user's private correspondence. It's rather
repressive, but diesn't bring up any sticky privacy issues.
                                  
> (2) If you do not like the content of an individuals
> newsgroup posting, then read the rn manual entry on
> how to use the "kill file";

   Reasonable.

> (3) If you do not like the content of an individuals
> e-mail, then feel perfectly free to delete it without
> reading it.  Refer to the mail manual entry for more
> information;

   Not reasonable. Unlike news, which is a broadcast medium, mail is
directed specifically to the reader. This makes offensive mail the
reponsibility of the sender as well as the reader. A more reasonable
solution to the problem is to ask the offending sender to stop sending
offensive mail. After repeated complaints (and talking to the
offender), I would consider revoking either mail priveleges or the
entire account.

> (4) If you believe the content of a posting is contrary 
> to law, then inform the proper authorities;

> (5) System managers are not the court of last resort
> in case you are losing an argument on the net.  Refer
> to "The Art of Clear Thinking" by Rudolph Flesch,
> "Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument" by Fearnside
> or other similar book for more information on how to
> argue without whining to mother.

   They certainly can be effective though. And people who are prone to
mailing obcenities are not always renowned for clear thinking :-).
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 18 16:19:12 1992
From: jfowler@beta.lanl.gov (John C. Fowler)
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 7--Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Date: 18 Jun 92 20:01:26 GMT

In article <1992Jun18.172148.2144@unix.brighton.ac.uk> ddv@unix.brighton.ac.uk (Domenico De Vitto) writes:
>What can be illegal about finding out passwords ?
>           ~~~~~~~~~

Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe that it's
_illegal_ in the U.K. to find out passwords.  It's also not illegal
there to note calling card or credit card numbers, as long as you
don't use them.  But if I patronize a business there using a credit
card, and the sales clerk writes down the card number for his own use later,
then I want that clerk fired, whether he has technically broken the
law yet or not.  The clerk was given a position of trust in handling
credit cards, and he should be removed for abusing that position.

The same goes for computer accounts.  You are given an account with
the understanding that you will not use it to attempt to crack the system.
But if you use that account to learn the passwords of other users, then
you are abusing the trust placed in you by the system administrator, and
he can remove your access for it.  Legality does not come into play.

-- 
John C. Fowler, jfowler@lanl.gov


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 19 02:56:30 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bdh@eff.org (Brian D. Howard)
Subject: Article 8--Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 06:55:54 GMT

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>[A followup to an article in alt.security - Carl]

>bdh@eff.org (Brian D. Howard) writes:

>>[...]  The reasoning was something like the
>>computer was like a hotel and the account a room in it.  The files were
>>like drawers or coatracks.  We had the right to enter and look at anything
>>as we owned the 'premises'.
>[...]
>> ... all 
>>bets are off (the shit hits the fan) if you disclose specific information 
>>to a third party that is *not* a law enforcement agency and used for law 
>>enforcement purposes.
>[...]

>I'm very skeptical of this advice. Does this mean that law enforcment
>doesn't need a search warrent if my apartment landlord lets them in?
>I don't think so.

If you are a tenant in an apartment there are all sorts of law usually
that requires all manner of things to search. In a hotel room (and
similar) all bets are off.  I think the point was that computer stored
files *can* be regarded as fair game; are different, or so the reasoning
seems to be.  I'm not saying its good or bad, I'm merely reporting what
I know or have seen in operation.  To restate- it seems the expectation of
provacy in a computer system *can* be seen as *different*.



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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 14:57:22 1992
From: GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson)
Subject: Article 9--Net Threat
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 00:16:01 GMT

Reprinted from the New York Times, 6/10/92 p. b8

AN ANARCHIST, A THREAT TO BUSH AND THE SPOTLIGHT

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass., June 7 -- A computer message that threatened the
life of President Bush has brought the Secret Service onto the
tranquil Williams College campus here.  Under investigation for
sending the message via the school's computer system is Brian Coan,
an honors student and self-proclaimed anarchist who is also a track
star at this small liberal arts college.  The two-sentence message,
which was sent out in early May as part of a dialogue among students
on a national intercollegiate network, condemned Mr. Bush for
criticizing rioters in Los Angeles after he had waged war in Iraq.
It then said, "George Bush and his people need a bullet in the head."
It was not known how the authorities learned of the message, but Mr.
Coan, who graduated today, said he was subpoenaed last month after
refusing to talk with Secret Service agents who showed up at his
track practice.  He said he appeared before a grand jury two weeks
ago but refused to testify, citing his rights against compelled
self-incrimination...


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 16 11:08:29 1992
From: pkern@utcs.utoronto.ca (pkern)
Subject: Article 10--U of Toronto reaction
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 04:50:26 GMT


_The Bulletin_
University of Toronto
June 8, 1992

page 1.


Network Pornography Elicits Little Reaction at U of T

By Karina Dahlin

   U of T is not planning to intercept or censor the international
computer network, Internet, that carries among its thousands of files
a couple that contain violent pornographic material.
   Material of this nature has been available for a long time and
University of Toronto Computing Services has not received any
complaints about it, said associate director Eugene Siciunas.
   Last month the University of Manitoba cut off access to a file
called "sex-bondage."  Terry Falconer, vice-president (administration),
said in an interview that complaints about the material were made to
the news media and recounted to him.  The Winnipeg police department
told Canadian Press that anyone distributing material that depicts
violence against women and children may be prosecuted.  Although the
police paid a visit to the university, Falconer does not expect them
to take any action.
   Falconer has not received any direct complaints about his action
but has heard it is being compared to censorship.  That is not the
way he sees it.  "We don't make such material available in the
bookstore or the library either."  If anyone wishes to study the
restricted file, the university will provide access to it, he said.
   Like a bookstore, Internet offers a multitude of reading material
arranged in categories such as science, sociology and miscellaneous.
The file banned in Winnipeg and one listed as "sex-bestiality" are
available under the heading "alternatives."  To open any of the files
people must push certain keys on their keyboard.
   If the material were to be intercepted at U of T, it would
probably be on the order of David Sadleir, vice-president (computing
and communications).  Such action seems unlikely.  "I am not a
censor," said Sadleir in an interview.  Not knowing the details about
the case at the University of Manitoba, he did not wish to pass
judgement on it.
  Sadleir's view is that if a recipient has to actively select
information, there is no need for U of T to take action.  If, on the
other hand, the messages are flashed across the screen without user
consent, his response would be "very aggressive" regardless of the
content.  Such practice could be described as invasion of people's
privacy, he said.
   A couple of months ago, U of T was asked by other Canadian
universities to help trace the source of some pornographic computer
material, Sadleir said.  The site was identified as a large US
university.  While it is possible to block access to an institution
that transmits offensive material, this would also restrict access to
useful information, he added.
   What constitutes proper use of computer networks is the source of
much debate.  Although the topic is mentioned in various codes of
conduct and user policies at the University, no one has yet
formulated a policy that addresses all concerns.  "I'm looking forward
to someone coming up with the definitive statement but I haven't seen
one yet," Sadleir said.  "It's a complex reality, one that's going to
plague us for a while."
   ONet, one of the thousands of networks that form and carry
Internet, should not be blamed for the contents of the messages that
individual users post, says John Drake, assistant vice-president
(computing and information services) at McMaster University and chair
of the management board of ONet.  The Ontario-wide research and
education network is a carrier, not a provider or publisher of
information and its managers should not decide which material is
proper to transmit, Drake said in an interview.
  ONet is an association, not a government-regulated carrier as is
Bell Canada.  But like a phone company it provides a service with the
view that "what you do with the phone is up to you," said Drake.

			===== =====
[ page 2: from the mast-head ]

The Bulletin
Published every two weeks by the Department of Public Affairs,
21 King's College Circle, 2nd floor,
University of Toronto, Toronto, M5S 1A1.

Material may be reprinted in whole or in part with appropriate
credit to _The Bulletin_.
			===== =====


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 18 12:47:27 1992
From: tt@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future,news.groups
Subject: Article 11--Re: would this be censorship?
Date: 18 Jun 92 14:15:58 GMT

[I added news.groups to the Newsgroups: line.  Please consider
restricting followups as appropriate.]

In article <TT.92Jun11192359@tarzan.jyu.fi>, I wrote:
>> |> How about this:
>> |>
>> |>Build a mechanism for "soft-moderated" groups:
>> |>The moderator doesn't screen individual articles but simply sends
>> |>kill file modifications as control messages which are automatically
>> |>applied to implement the kind of "soft censoring" I suggested.  Also,
>> |>besides being able to turn this mechanism off users should be able to
>> |>use regular kill files not only to kill even more articles but also to
>> |>override the default ("unkill" articles by some criteria).

Some followups prompt me to clarify one thing about this:

I do _not_ want to restrict anybody's right to post or read whatever
they wish, nor am I trying to accommodate or compromise with those
who do.  I just want _for myself_ some additional means for selecting
what I want to read.

Censorship is not the only problem -- the sheer volume of information
is a big problem also.  Important information can be lost not only
because it's suppressed but also because it's buried under irrelevant
stuff one has no time to scan through.

I believe the mechanism outlined above would be useful for some groups
-- not all, it would be just another alternative between normal
moderation and none at all, and of course it'd have to be voted on
just like normal moderation or name change or whatever.

And I can't see how it can be called censorship, as those who do not
like the moderation would be free to ignore it (unlike with normal
moderation).  One additional suggestion I do like is providing a
reverse switch that would allow seeing only the articles moderator has
disapproved of, for the true dissenters.

The only problem is that it requires changes in News software.
I think, however, that it could be implemented so that old
software would simply see such groups as unmoderated, so it
would not need to be adopted everywhere at once.
Even so I'm rather pessimistic about the possibility of
it actually happening, but perhaps some day ...
--
Tapani Tarvainen    (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)




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

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 =
Xref: sparky alt.grad-student.tenured:27 sci.research.careers:520