From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.28 (Digest)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:48:27 GMT

Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 02, No. 28


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

From: joslin@tso.uc.edu (Paul Joslin)
Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.28

[Week ending June 14, 1992

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


Note 1 is a repost of a long discussion of the use of "handles" to
provide anonymity online.

1. This article is [a pointer to ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/anonymity,]
   an excerpt from an issue of FIDONEWS
   on individual privacy and the use of handles.  It accepts the need of a
   system operator to know the name of a user; but suggests that the use of a
   handle is analogous to a request to withhold the name in a letter
   to the editor. The article concludes with a set of guidelines for
   preserving the right to be anonymous.
     <92083.072152SOCICOM@auvm.american.edu>


Note 2 is a reprint of a UPI news article from ClariNet in which a US
Judge found artistic expression to be protected speech.  

2.  "A federal judge declared unconstitutional Tuesday the decency
    clause the National Endowment for the Arts used in determining who
    receives grant money, saying it was too vague and overbroad in
    restricting artists' freedom of speech."
    <1992Jun10.040756.10831@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

Note 3 is a list of news groups not carried in the UK because of content.

3.  (A system administrator:) The list of newgroups we cannot carry
    includes alt.sex*, alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and
    rec.arts.erotica.
    <1992Jun08.165434.4998@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>

Note 4 is a comment on a request by Canadian police for information on
sexually explicit postings from an American anonymous posting service.

4. (A system administrator:)  The police are more concerned with
   stopping it than with charging someone.  It handled correctly, the
   police will gain a better understanding of USENET, and not
   overreact.  A greater concern is that the University administration
   will overreact in response to public pressure.
    <3530@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca>

Note 5 concerns a Canadian writer who was denied entry into the US
because US officials did not approve of some of his writings.

5.  The writings are freely available in the US. "So you could argue
    that his "right" to freely express his ideas has not been denied
    by the US.  Only his choice of method has been restricted."
    <194@ceylon.gte.com>

Note 6 concerns a speech on the basic elements of a legal system.  The
speech was given by US Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy in
Australia.

6. According to Justice Kennedy, the fundamental elements that the law
   and legal system rest are:
   ". that government rested on the consent of the people
    . that government protected a core of personal rights - today
	called human rights 
    . that there must be an enduring structure which guaranteed
	the first two elements 
    . that there be an obligation on each citizen to obey the law
	and to transmit  the rule of law to a subsequent generation."
    <920614170756.20204464@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>


Notes 7-9 concern the legality of searching files owned by users if
violations of system policies are suspected.

7. In the US, the  Electronic Communications Privacy Act may limit
   what a system administrator can and cannot do.  A signed legal
   opinion can prevent a lot of heartache.
    <a6_l62b.nagle@netcom.com>

8. (A system administrator:) 3 times in 5 years I have found a
   "suspicious" executable.  The command "strings" usually gives me
   enough information to confirm or refute that suspicion.
    <1992Jun12.102023.26109@ms.uky.edu>

9. (A professor of computer science:) If in doubt, consult legal
   counsel.  It is my understanding that any search I perform on my
   system at my own initiation is legal.  The results of that search
   can be given to law enforcement agencies, and used in trial. "Note
   that this does not cover evidence that may conflict with the ECPA
   (but if you are the owner/operator of the system doing the search
   to maintain system integrity, you are probably okay), the
   Educational Records Privacy Act (the "Buckley Amendment"), state
   and Federal wiretap laws, and a few other such laws. ...  It is the
   *civil* parts of these acts that may cause the most difficulty."
    <SPAF.92Jun8145034@uther.cs.purdue.EDU>

Note 10 concerns restrictions designed to reduce network traffic by
banning certain types of packets.

10.   When a restriction is leveled against everyone equally and is
      based on resource concerns, it is not a censorship issue.
      According to the backbone statistics, IRC and netnews generate
      almost 11% of the traffic.
      <1992Jun8.95807.8525@ms.uky.edu>

Note 11 concerns an section of the Criminal Code of Canada which bans
"a magazine, periodical or book that exclusively or substantially"
pictorially depicts the commission of a crime.

11. "Under this definition, about 90% of the comic books that exist in
    the world are going to run afoul of this definition.  Even the
    Disney comics are going to get into trouble since one of the main
    themes in any tale concerning Scrooge McDuck is the attempt of
    others to obtain parts of his wealth (theft is a crime!)."
    <1992Jun9.004550.9542@wolves.uucp>


Note 12 discusses how to deal with harassing computer communications.

12. Harassment is intentional, unwanted person-to-person
    communication by any channel.  Explicitly tell the harasser to
    stop communicating with you.  Save copies of all communications.
    If the harassment continues, contact a system administrator,
    university official or the courts.
    <1992Jun11.180712.21660@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

- Paul]




In this issue:

                 36  Anonymity and privacy on the network
Carl M. Kadie    66  [UPI] Federal judge rules NEA decency clause unconstitutional
                 36  >Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Chris Lewis      54  >
Curtis Fennell   43  >Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Mark P Neely     69  Fundamentals of a Legal System
                 26  >Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Wes Morgan       85  >
                 42  >
Wes Morgan      128  >Newsgroup and packet bans at Duke?
                 60  Superman and Batman Illegal in Canada?
Carl M. Kadie    67  >vax harrassment



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  8 19:52:43 1992
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Article 1--Anonymity and privacy on the network
Date: 23 Mar 92 12:21:52 GMT
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center

[ARTICLE DELETED

For reasons of space, the article has been put in the CAF archive
rather than sent out in the CAF-News. Here is access information:

=================
anonymity
=================
This article is an excerpt from an issue of FIDONEWS on individual
privacy and the use of handles.  It accepts the need of a system
operator to know the name of a user; but suggests that the use of a
handle is analogous to a request to withhold the name in a letter to
the editor. The article concludes with a set of guidelines for
preserving the right to be anonymous.

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

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/anonymity

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 anonymity


- Carl
]


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 00:17:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 2--[UPI] Federal judge rules NEA decency clause unconstitutional
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 04:07:56 GMT

Copyright 1992 by UPI.  Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.news.law.crime,
clari.news.gov.usa, & clari.news.issues.  For more info on ClariNet,
write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.

	LOS ANGELES (UPI) -- A federal judge declared unconstitutional Tuesday
the decency clause the National Endowment for the Arts used in
determining who receives grant money, saying it was too vague and
overbroad in restricting artists' freedom of speech.
	In a 44-page ruling, U.S. District Judge A. Wallace Tashima found
that ``artistic expression, no less than academic speech or journalism
is at the core of a democratic society's cultural and political
vitality.''
	The court also ruled that four artists will be entitled to grants
denied by ex-NEA Chairman John Frohnmayer if they can prove at trial
that the NEA denied the grants for political rather than aesthetic
reasons.
	Congress adopted the decency provision in November 1990. The Bush
administration argued it should be upheld because the NEA had limited
funds and should be able to have a procedure by which the money is
distributed.
	The provision required the NEA chairperson to ensure that ``artistic
excellence and artistic merit are the criteria by which applications are
judged, taking into consideration general standards of decency and
respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.''
	The artists, Karen Finley, John Fleck, Holly Hughes and Tim Miller,
who became known as the ``NEA Four'' challenged the provision by filing
a lawsuit in September 1990 in Los Angeles federal court seeking an
order overruling their grant rejections.
	Fleck and Miller are Los Angeles area performing artists, and Finley
and Hughes are performing artists from New York.
	Hughes said she was very happy about Tashima's decision.
	``I'm very happy that the court has decided that people who receive
money from the government don't have to forfeit rights guaranteed to
them in that government's Constitution,'' she said.``
	The artists' work is highly political. All but Finley is homosexual
and the artists include homosexual and lesbian themes prominently in
their work, which has received broad critical acclaim.
	Finley's performances are stridently feminist in tone. She has
appeared on stage partially clothed, her body smeared with melted
chocolate and alfalfa sprouts to symbolize denigration of women by
forcing them to wallow in excrement and sperm.
	Finley and Miller previously received numerous NEA grants.
	The plight of the four attracted national attention when Frohnmayer
overruled the unanimous vote of grant-review panel and rejected the
fellowships.
	The decision was made after Frohnmayer reportedly told a meeting of
arts activists that the NEA's precarious political situation
necessitated denial of the grants.
	According to the lawsuit, Frohnmayer sacrificed the artists ``because
of the controversial political content of their work. He did so with the
aim of suppressing the expression of the plaintiff's ideas.''
	The suit asked for an additional $50,000 in damages to Finley, whose
privacy rights were violated, the complaint charged, by an alleged NEA
leak to conservative columnists of her confidential NEA grant
application.
	The NEA gives grants to artists and arts institutions nationwide. Its
political turmoil began in April 1989 with the NEA-funded work of
photographer Robert Mapplethorpe. A show of his work, which included
homo-erotic art, was the subject of a state court obscenity prosecution
in Cincinnati.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun  8 14:30:23 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Article 3--Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Date: 8 Jun 92 16:54:34 GMT

This is a *little* old now, but you get the idea ...

-------------------From ukc --------------------------------------
 
 Here is an up to date list of the newsgroups that we cannot carry:
 
        alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
        alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless
        alt.drugs
        alt.evil
        alt.personals
        alt.personals.bondage
        alt.personals.misc
        alt.psychoactives
        alt.sex
        alt.sex.bestiality
        alt.sex.bondage
        alt.sex.masturbation
        alt.sex.motss
        alt.sex.movies
        alt.sex.pictures.female
        alt.sex.pictures.male
        alt.tasteless
        rec.arts.erotica
 
 Ian.
 --
 Ian Harding
 UKnet Backbone
+++


Simple.    J.


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 04:59:23 1992
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,soc.culture.canada,alt.censorship
Subject: Article 4--Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Date: 10 Jun 92 07:32:20 GMT

In article <1992Jun8.213007.5262@rice.edu> cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston) writes:
>In article <1992Jun8.160443.25212@tssi.com> nolan@tssi.com writes:

>>If A and B have agreed to exchange news, I think it is less important who
>>initiates the call than who decides what information is sent/received.

>Yeah -- *decides.*  Although the upstream site has physical control
>over what's sent, it's usually configured according to the request of
>the downstream end.  If the downstream end has asked for group x.y to
>be removed and upstream either has refused or not gotten around to it
>yet, then perhaps you could blame them.  If they haven't been asked,
>then I'd think the people receiving the news would be at fault.

>Not that I think anything's going on that ought to be anybody's
>"fault," whatever the Canadian police think.

I don't imagine that the police think that anybody's at fault.  Yet.

They're probably simply trying to stop it rather than charge anybody.

They do have computer experts to draw upon, but USENET is a big jump from
the stuff they've worked with before.  The reportage you're seeing in the media
(and here for that matter) is the police talking for public consumption.
Because, given the way the media has blown it out of proportion, the
general public will want it stopped.  Immediately.

Provided that the people that the police contact in USENET don't freak
out, the police will end up understanding the situation, and not overreact.
University administration is far more likely to panic and pull the plug
because they're being seen as implicitly approving the expenditure
of public money to transport such crap.

I've had some exposure to police investigation of somewhat higher profile
computer "problems".  Mostly personal medical information leakage (ie:
VD registry "leaks").  The police handled it quite well.  That was
partly my fault ;-), but it's a *looong* story.

>I wonder how the law applies to printed pornography?  If some magazine
>is printed in the US, but illegal in Canada, and some guy subscribes,
>who gets in trouble?  The publisher, the subscriber, or both?

The law is very simple.  Canadian courts have *no* jurisdiction in the
US.  Even if the material is illegal in the US, Canadian courts cannot
prosecute a US publisher.  Otherwise, Hefner and Guccione would have
been in Canadian jails when the rules were a lot stricter.  The courts
can charge a Canadian distributor or (very rarely in practise) a
"subscriber" (for possession).
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 18:35:46 1992
From: chf0@newshost.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.sex,alt.config,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 5--Re: Farlay Mowat and Free Speech (was: Congratulations...)
Date: 11 Jun 92 21:50:01 GMT

In article <2A358004.61D@telly.on.ca>, evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
|> In article <1992Jun5.124334.24073@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
|> 	jsm4u@sonja.math.Virginia.EDU (Joe McDonnell) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Jun4.225125.19301@dragon.acadiau.ca>  
|> >alan@dragon.acadiau.ca (Alan McKay) writes:
|> 
|> >> Sorry guy.  If you want to talk about censorship, how about talking
|> >> about the renouned Canadian write Farlay Mowat being refused entry into
|> >> the "good-ol'" US of A because of a book he wrote entitled "Sea of
|> >> Slaughter".
|> 
|> >What, then, is your criticism?
|> 
|> The criticism is that the U.S. Government, while claiming to serve the
|> ethical ideals of freedom of speech, denies such freedoms to a foreigner
|> only because his views were seen to be incorrect.
|> 
|> Certainly there is no cry that the US does not have the right to refuse
|> entry to a foreigner for any reason it sees fit. It's just that in this
|> specific case, these actions are ethically inconsistent with a proclaimed
|> desire to absolutely protect people's freedom of speech.
|> 
|> [the US] Yet its government apparently would deny an outsider the
|> opportunity to express an unpopular viewpoint within the US, when given
|> the power to do so.

There is a problem with the interpretation put on this incident (which
I would like to know more about, by the way - email would be fine),
namely that Farley Mowatt may have been denied entry into the US, but
his books are certainly available here in the average bookstore,
including "Sea of Slaughter".  So you could argue that his "right" to
freely express his ideas has not been denied by the US.  Only his
choice of method has been restricted.

-- 
============================================================
Curt Fennell    [   "Get DOWN off that cross, honey!       ]
chf0@gte.com	[    Somebody needs the wood!"             ]
============================================================


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 14 03:42:25 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU (Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University)
Subject: Article 6--Fundamentals of a Legal System
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1992 17:07:56 GMT

I came across an article which I thought Usenet readers (especially those in
the US) might find of interest!

It is extracted from the August 1989 edition of _Australian Law News_, with the
quotes taken from an article printed on pp13-15. The article is based on a 
speech given by US Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:

Title: Lawyers must Understand Fundamentals of the Law, Judge Says.


The essense of the speech was Justice Kennedy urging lawyers to look beyong the
more immediate aspects of delivering legal services to understand and protect
the philosophical and ethical precepts on which the law rests.

To quote:

"Justice Kennedy said the four elements on which the law and a legal system
rested were:

. that government rested on the consent of the people
. that government protected a core of personal rights - today called human
  rights
. that there must be an enduring structure which guaranteed the first two
  elements
. that there be an obligation on each citizen to obey the law and to transmit
  the rule of law to a subsequent generation.

"Justice Kennedy outlined the historical background to the concept of rule by
consent and said: 'The consent of which we speak is a very ancient one. It is a
consent to a system, it is a consent to a social order.'

He continued: "It does not derive from any contract that was created at some
particular historic time; it does not involve a contract at all, because in
American constitutional theory and in constitutional theories of most western
democracies, government does not exist as a party to make a contract with the
people; it is created by the people".

"So this consent is fundamental and it may not be withdrawn unless the
Government is not preserving the other elements of the rule of law...All of us
can identify laws that we dislike. This does not give us the right to withdraw
consent". 

Kennedy discussed several truisms as he saw them surrounding the upholding of
the rule of law, one of which was that personal rights must be guaranteed 
by the Government

He notes that it is dangerous for any one person or generation to compile an
exhaustive list of human rights. But nevertheless, the basics are as follows:

(a) There must be, at a minimum, protection for the rights of expression, of
conscience, of speech and belief, in all their forms.

(b) There must be freedom from arbitrary and evasive physical restraint by the
Government

(c) There must be freedom from classification based on race, creed,
colour, sex, national origin and religion

(d) There must be the right to own and acquire property.

He then goes on to comment that the Constitution of the United States was
written in the same style - it talks about life liberty and property.


Any comments?



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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:50:32 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security
Subject: Article 7--Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Date: 6 Jun 92 17:08:48 GMT


        Check out the Electronic Communications Privacy Act before 
doing any searches.  Sysops have legal responsibilities in the US.
Amateur attempts at "law enforcement" may result in the "enforcers"
committing real crimes and real torts for which they can be held
accountable in court.

        I would suggest to sysops of educational systems that before 
looking in any student's account, they obtain legal advice, including
a signed legal opinion that what they are doing is lawful and a statement
by the institution that the institution will indemify them against 
any legal claim against them growing out of the search.

        I know of a recent case where a university professor had to 
defend his actions while indulging in amateur sleuthing.  Hearings
went on for weeks, the process cost an amount in six figures, and
eventually the parties settled out of court.  The professor is
generally considered to have suffered a major career setback.

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


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 12 10:31:23 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Article 8--Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 14:20:23 GMT

joslin@c0223.ae.ge.com writes:
>If a system administrator believes he has the right to execute an
>arbitrary executable, it would be prudent to publish that fact in the
>rules for your system.  This way, the users cannot claim an expectation
>of privacy. 
>
>If a system administrator believes it is wise to execute
>an arbitrary executable, he is probably mistaken.  Even this solution
>has flaws:
>

On those extremely rare (thrice in 5 years) occasions when I have found
a "suspicious" executable, I have run "strings" on the binary.  That
usually gives me enough information to confirm/refute my suspicions.

Oh, I also do that with the user present.  When I find something sus-
picious, the first thing I do is archive it to a tape *without* exami-
nation; if I think it's *really* serious, I'll have a witness present.  
That prevents the user from "denastyfying" the program (or substituting 
an innocent program under that name, which one fellow tried to do). 

You should have been there for this conversation:

	User: You wanted to see me?

	  Me: Yes, I'm a bit concerned about a program you're running,
	      named "breaker".

	User: Oh, that's nothing; it just prints out a VT100 graphic
	      of some waves; I'm playing with character sets.

	  Me: Would you mind if I take a look at it? 

	User: Oh, sure!  There's nothing to it; kind of trivial, really.....

	  Me: OK, let me pull the copy from the backup tape I made a
	      few days ago.....

	User: Huh? <face falling>

	  Me: Oh, yeah, I copied it to a tape when I first noticed it.

	  Me: ...cpio -icdvm </dev/rmt/0m...

	User: <looks toward the door>

	  Me: ...strings breaker...

      System: plaintext of %s is %s
	      attacking password %s
              password broken
	      password for %s is %s
	      <etc.>

	User: Um, er, uh.....I was just fooling around!

	  Me: <remove riot act from desk>
	      <read user the riot act>
	      <point out University punishments for violations>

	User: <swears on mother's grave that he'll never do it again>
	      <expresses amazement at skills used>

[I let him off with a stern warning]
[5 minutes pass]

	   Me: ...ps -eaf...

	     UID  COMMAND
	    user  -sh 
	    user  man strings
	    user  lp

*sigh*

--Wes

-- 
 morgan@ms.uky.edu    |Wes Morgan, not speaking for|                MORGAN@UKCC 
 morgan@engr.uky.edu  |the University of Kentucky's|     ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
 morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
     Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 22:52:03 1992
Newsgroups: alt.security
Subject: Article 9--Re: Legalities and policies for searching user accounts
Date: 8 Jun 92 19:50:34 GMT

Before too many people go on and on about what constitutes a "search",
they might want to consult REAL legal counsel.  In most cases, any
search you do of your own systems at your own initiation is "legal"
and the results of those searches can be presented as wrong-doing to
law enforcement.

According to people involved with both state and federal law
enforcement and prosecution (I'm talking prosecutors and police),
anything I find on my own system, using whatever means at my disposal,
is not per se "illegal search" --- I don't need a warrant.  If I am
asked by a law enforcement officer to do the search, or if they want
to do it themselves -- it then requires a warrant (under US law) to
allow the results to be admitted as evidence in a trial.  Evidence
that I discover on my own may be admissable as evidence without a
warrant.  (The nature of the evidence and the safeguarding of same may
have an effect on admissability.)  As the legal owner or operator of
my own system, I can search it as I see fit; neither do I need a
warrant to search my own house or garage for contraband or
trespassers.  The evidence I discover can be turned over to the police
for invesitgation, too.

Note that this does not cover evidence that may conflict with the ECPA
(but if you are the owner/operator of the system doing the search to
maintain system integrity, you are probably okay), the Educational
Records Privacy Act (the "Buckley Amendment"), state and Federal
wiretap laws, and a few other such laws.  In those cases, however,
prosecutors are unlikely to press charges if you act within reasonable
bounds and find something indicating a problem.  It is the *civil*
parts of these acts that may cause the most difficulty.  Bystanders
and users may feel the urge to sue if the law gives them that option
and you do not take due care in your actions.

This is not intended as legal advice.  This is just repeating what I
have been told by dozens of lawyers, prosecutors, state police, FBI,
Secret Service agents, and others.  This may be different in other
countries.  As always, consult a real lawyer before proceeding.
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun  8 10:28:41 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 10--Re: Newsgroup and packet bans at Duke?
Date: 8 Jun 92 13:58:07 GMT

In article <1992Jun6.152045.9977@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>	To further add fire to the situation, I heard that the network
>services folk have active plans to squelch other network traffic that is
>deemed "less valuable" as well.  For example, they have plans to squelch
>"xtrek" packets, and  telnet connections to IRC servers!  With options
>to squelch telnet connections to other "frivolous" types of activities
>as well.   For this activity, they don't plan to make exceptions,
>aparently - all that traffic would be squelched.

Well, you can't fault them if they're applying the same restrictions to
all users.  Your description of the netnews situation is arguably a prob-
lem, but the network restriction, *when levied against everyone equally*,
is not a censorship issue.

It's easily conceivable that these "frivolous" connections/services are
placing a significant load on your network.  Have you asked the network
folks at Duke what their packet counts look like?  If IRC/Xtrek/Netrek
and the like are flooding the network, they may very well be justified
in restricting their use.  I'd ask for justification, though......

While we're at it, it might be a good idea to mention that "frivolous"
services such as IRC and Netnews can take a pretty large chunk out of 
one's network resources.  After reading this posting, I pulled down the
latest backbone statistics from nic.merit.edu (anonymous ftp, 35.1.1.48,
in directory /statistics/nsfnet).

Here are the "Top 10" services which traversed the NSFNet backbone in April 92:

   Service Name           Port   Packet Count  % Pkts    Byte Count     % Byts
   ============           ====   ============  ======  ===============  ======
1) ftp-data                 20  1,777,942,050  27.267  629,501,781,250  51.324
2) (other ports)          ----  1,360,689,950  20.868  128,494,133,550  10.476
3) telnet                   23    764,610,050  11.726   51,502,555,850   4.199
4) nntp                    119    604,296,900   9.268  118,870,235,800   9.692
5) smtp                     25    517,377,650   7.935   79,041,573,550   6.444
6) nameserver               53    460,741,850   7.066   43,511,326,900   3.547
7) ftp                      21    159,225,750   2.442   12,604,876,150   1.028
8) irc                    6667    123,975,050   1.901   11,595,136,400   0.945
9) (other protocols)      ----    121,799,250   1.868    9,302,792,750   0.758
10) vmnet                  175    111,123,500   1.704   39,249,040,700   3.200

NSFNet does not track all ports; according to the header of this file, they
only track ports 0-1023, 2049, 6000-6003, and 6667.  According to the server
lists on rec.games.netrek, most servers run on port 2592; therefore, their
traffic is included in item #2, "(other ports)".

{ ++off_subject_flag; }
However, we can see that NNTP (Network News Transfer Protocol) comes in at
#4 on our list.  We could make the assumption that a certain portion of
SMTP (email) and FTP traffic is generated by netnews, so the "Usenet portion"
of the backbone traffic is actually greater than the 9.2% given for nntp alone.
{ --off_subject_flag; }

We can also see that IRC shows up in the "Top 10", but its 1.9% contribution
appears negligible.

I also pulled down the list of networks generating traffic over the NSFNet
backbone during the same period.

Here are the "Top 20" networks, in terms of traffic sent across the NSFNet
backbone in April 1992:

                                             Packets      Packets    Percentages
                                             In To        Out From   In      Out
    AS   IP Number    Network Name           Backbone     Backbone
    ==== ============ ====================  ===========  =========== ===== =====
1)  93   128.252      WASHINGTON-U          363,398,850  166,088,700  5.57  2.55
2)  73   128.95       WASHINGTON            204,290,400  204,560,450  3.13  3.14
3)  702  137.39       UUNET-WAN             130,540,050   84,524,350  2.00  1.30
4)  194  128.117      UCAR                  120,650,300  116,736,500  1.85  1.79
5)  209  128.138      COLORADO              108,226,150   89,392,900  1.66  1.37
6)  209  129.24       UNM-CDCN               97,897,800   70,796,500  1.50  1.09
7)  267  129.79       INDIANA-NET            95,326,850   65,549,650  1.46  1.01
8)  38   128.174      UIUC-CAMPUS-B          87,522,950   79,819,350  1.34  1.22
9)  200  36           SU-NET-TEMP            86,676,850   56,509,450  1.33  0.87
10) 204  128.2        CMU-NET                86,274,400   78,488,000  1.32  1.20
11) 280  128.83       UTAUSTIN               84,499,000   66,616,300  1.30  1.02
12) 200  128.32       UCB-ETHER              84,269,900   75,667,700  1.29  1.16
13) 291  128.55       NERSC                  73,103,750   35,656,650  1.12  0.55
14) 601  128.100      TORONTO                59,789,850   44,765,250  0.92  0.69
15) 267  128.255      UIOWA                  57,848,350   44,890,900  0.89  0.69
16) 209  132.194      CUDENVER               49,269,100   43,465,100  0.76  0.67
17) 685  128.193      ORST                   46,179,450   41,766,500  0.71  0.64
18) 1225 128.104      WISC-HERD              43,350,400   40,819,350  0.66  0.63
19) 195  132.249      SDSCLAN                43,349,550   21,833,250  0.66  0.33
20) 685  134.129      NODAK                  41,711,300   33,752,050  0.64  0.52

Now, let's find Duke.  Duke routes a large portion of its traffic through
CONCERT, so we'll include their entries....

99)   81 128.109      CONCERT                14,397,800   29,718,400  0.22  0.46
492)  81 192.101.21   CONCERT-B               1,817,200    3,139,850  0.03  0.05
2200) 81 152.3        DUKE-NET                   34,900      145,150  0.00  0.00
4054) 81 192.101.24   CONCERT-E                       0           50  0.00  0.00


Since Duke/CONCERT are responsible for less than 1% of the total traffic over
the NSFNet backbone (during April 1992, at least), I think we can rule out
any "outside pressure", such as the infamous-yet-nonexistent NSF net.police.

>	I thought Duke was doing pretty good, and then I took a look
>beyond the end of my nose.

Well, I've given you a bit of ammunition; it would appear that the traffic
generated by IRC has actually declined somewhat in recent months (I'd have
to pull down the statistics for the last 12 months or so to be sure).  If
their argument is based on "backbone load", NSF's own statistics refute that
point.  If their argument is based on LOCAL network load, you should ask for
their statistics.

As I said earlier, you may not be able to argue against the restriction on
xtrek/netrek/IRC, IF THE RESTRICTION IS APPLIED TO EVERYONE EQUALLY.

I'm sure that Carl (and other readers) will provide numerous citiations to
help you with your netnews problem.

--Wes



-- 
 morgan@ms.uky.edu    |Wes Morgan, not speaking for|                MORGAN@UKCC 
 morgan@engr.uky.edu  |the University of Kentucky's|     ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
 morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
     Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun  9 14:56:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.censorship
Subject: Article 11--Superman and Batman Illegal in Canada?
Date: 9 Jun 92 00:45:50 GMT

On the face of the law in Canada, quoted by....

In <1992Jun6.223237.12837@wizvax.methuen.ma.us> wi.4789@wizvax... writes:
>Some facts, for a change.
>
>Fundamental Freedoms
>2.  Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
>    (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
>    (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including
>    freedom of the press and other media of communication;
>    (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
>    (d) freedom of association.
>
>[ Excerpt from the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46]
>
>Part V - Sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct
>
>Offences tending to corrupt morals.
>
>163. (1) Every one commits an offence who
>    (a) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or who has in
>        his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or
>        circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph
>        record or other thing whatever; or
>    (b) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or who has in
>        his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or
>        circulation a crime comic.
>
>(7) In this section, ``crime comic'' means a magazine, periodical or book
>    that exclusively or substantially comprises matter depicting pictorially
>    (a) the commission of crimes, real or fictitious; or
>    (b) events connected with the commission of crimes, real or fictitious,
>        whether occurring before or after the commission of the crime.


Under this definition, about 90% of the comic books that exist in the
world are going to run afoul of this definition.  Even the Disney comics
are going to get into trouble since one of the main themes in any tale
concerning Scrooge McDuck is the attempt of others to obtain parts of
his wealth (theft is a crime!).

Even poor little Ritchie Rich is going to be a "crime comic".

I don't see any way that the usual D.C. Comics stable of characters is
going to escape this law.

Even such comics as the reprint of Vaughn Bode's Cobalt 60 is going the
be an "obscene" publication under this particular rule.  Murder is a
crime!   And the intent is irrelevant :-)

O Canada, we stand on guard (against) thee!
NOTE Well: the US of A has laws that are just as, or more, stupid!
-- 
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC         [use the maps!]
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!wolfe   ...duke!wolves!wolfe    <Standard disclaimers>
Domain: wolfe%wolves@cs.duke.edu    wolfe@cds.duke.edu
    Above all, we celebrate.   Celebrate the Circle Statement of Purpose


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

From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 14:18:58 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 12--Re: vax harrassment
Date: 11 Jun 92 18:07:12 GMT

>Is it illegal to harass me over the vax, and how do I deal with someone 
>who is? Please respond before June 12.

Verbal harassment is (roughly) intentional, unwanted, person-to-person
communications. So, repeated unwanted email can be harassment.
Articles that offend you in a newspaper or public newsgroup likely
aren't.

Harassment by computer is still harassment.

First, be sure you have explicitly told the harasser to stop
communicating with you. Save copies of unwanted communications.

Then, if the harassment continues, ask for help from the computer
administrators (yours or the harasser's), the university, or the
courts to stop the communications. On some systems, you can filter out
email from the harasser yourself.

What not to do: Don't harass back; *you* might end up in more trouble
your harasser.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
law/gates-v-brewer
=================
An excerpt from a newspaper article about email harassment. A judge
agreed that Bill Gates of Mircosoft had been the victim of harassment.

=================
faq/censorship-and-harassment
=================
q: Must/should universities ban material that some find offensive
(from Netnews facilities, email, libraries, and student publications,
etc) in order to comply with antiharassment laws?

=================
news/cafv02n11
=================
Includes two articles about filter email on a unix system.

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

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/law/gates-v-brewer
  pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment
  pub/academic/news/cafv02n11

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/law gates-v-brewer
send acad-freedom/faq censorship-and-harassment
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n11


--
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.comp.acad-freedom.news