HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [comp.admin.policy]  Re: logging outgoing telnet sessions to catch 'hackers' (summary)
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:46:25 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


From: sean@sdg.dra.com
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject:  Re: logging outgoing telnet sessions to catch 'hackers' (summary)
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:25:30 CDT

In article <vijay.703271720@cdsun.fnal.gov>, vijay@cdsun.fnal.gov (Vijay Gurbani) writes:
> I beg to differ. Getting an account on a system is not a *right*, it is a 
> *priviledge*, much like getting a driving licence. As with any priviledge,

It depends.  Maybe on your system it is a privilege, but on other systems
the account may be provided as part of a contract.

I don't expect my bank to examine my safety deposit box I lease from them (to
continue the use of poor analogies).

-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: [info.labmgr] Ethics statement
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:41:04 GMT

kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
}This is a critique of Computer Ethics Statement for Iowa State
}University. The due process protection of the policy is good. The
}privacy protection is unclear. Free expression protection is poor.
}(The policy imposes speech restrictions on email and other computer
}media. Specifically, it prohibits rude expression and any expression
}of a political nature. In my opinion, these speech restrictions
}violate academic freedom and the law.)
        This is old wording, see below.

}>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
}>ISU has had a computer ethics statement in place for over a year.  Originally
}>the statement was a statement of ethics from the Computation Center, but we
}>worked through the Dean of Students Office, the university lawyer(s) and the
}>Administrative Data Processing Center (the Computation Ctr is the academic
}>center on campus) to make this a campus-wide policy.

}I think the policy could be improved with wider participation.
}Specifically, computer users should formally participate. Also,
}because the policy involves important issues of academic freedom, the
}faculty senate and academic freedom committee should be involved.

    A revision to the policy was brought before the University Computation
    Advisory Committee several months ago (late '91?, early '92?).  This
    committee is comprised of roughly equal numbers of faculty and students.
    It was approved by that group (I am a student member).  I do not know
    if it is now in effect or what may have happened to it since.

}[...]
}>    #  Sending rude, obscene or harassing material via any electronic mail
}>       or bulletin board facility is strictly forbidden.

}In my opinion, it is unethical and illegal to strictly forbid rude
}expression. It is the general policy of most universities (especially
}state universities) to encourage free expression.

The revised version reads:

    # ISU policies regarding the appropriate use of university facilities
      and the ethics of personal behavior apply to the use of all forms of
      electronic communication.  In addition, users of any electronic
      communication facilities -- electronic mail, networks, bulletin
      boards, and newsgroups, etc., are obligated to comply with the
      restrictions and acceptable practices established for those specific
      facilities.  Certain type[s] of communications are expressly
      forbidden, including the random mailing of messages, the sending of
      obscene, harrassing, or threatening material, or the use of the
      facilities for commercial or political purposes.

I make no comment of whether this is better, worse, or equal to the
previous wording, but we ought to at least be talking about the
right one.

John
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.society]  Re: USENET Censorship at Iowa State University
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:11:22 GMT


From: mulford@brahms.udel.edu (George Mulford)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject:  Re: USENET Censorship at Iowa State University
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:33:13 GMT


In article <1992Apr4.050354.13778@tssi.com> nolan@tssi.com (Michael Nolan)
 writes:
;
;
; I find the argument that there is a list of those who have requested access
; to the restricted groups specious.  There are likely lists of what books
; I have checked out from the library, and what videotapes I have rented


As a point of reference:

The list of books a reader has checked out is considered confidential
information by librarians of free public libraries.  When a reader took
a gun and shot up some people at random in a mall near my home, the
police investigators visited the library and asked for her loan records.
The librarian refused to release them, cited the relevant (Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania) statute, and made it stick!

--

George W. Mulford                              mulford@brahms.udel.edu
Instructional Technology Center                University of Delaware
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [soc.men]  Re: A neat story, and a question.
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:39:59 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


From: cnh5730@maraba.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject:  Re: A neat story, and a question.
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:00:35 GMT

In article <FXBL_3C@ais.org> chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald)  
writes:
[...]
$ A user
$ overheard some thing I said, most of which she found offensive. 
[...]
$I am now in Deep Doo
[...]
$ I have been informed that making comments that "are sexual, or
$ could be construed as sexist" are grounds for a sexual harrassment  
charge. I
$ do not know who my accuser is, nor have I ever spoken to her.
[...]
$ I can't believe saying something that "offends"
$ somebody in a room, when you've NEVER spoken to them or even know  
who they
$ are can be termed 'sexual harrassment.'

In many places, you can be charged with sexual harrassment if you put  
a calender on the wall of your personal office that has a picture of  
a female in a bikini leaning against a '57 Chevy.

If you're mad about this kind of politically-correct bullying, start  
writing your elected (and wanna-be's) representatives demanding that  
they stop knuckling under to the feminazis who patrol the halls of  
government looking for people to strong-arm.

Fight misandry effectively. Fight it in the halls of government. Only  
when men have their own lobbying groups will this start to turn  
around.
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk]  Re: Academic programs in "computers, freedom and privacy"?
Date: 17 Apr 92 05:00:34 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


From: jandrews@public.BTR.COM (Jerry Andrews  jandrews@btr.com)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject:  Re: Academic programs in "computers, freedom and privacy"?
Date: 17 Apr 92 05:26:02 GMT

>It made me wonder: are there any academic degree programs concentrating
>on the political, social, ethical and economic issues surrounding the
>emerging technologies we're concerned with here?  I don't know what

That makes *me* wonder -- what would a person with such a degree do for a 
living?  I think a more useful approach would be to get a degree in 
one of the emerging technologies,
do your electives in philosphy, and then develop your philosophical arguements
while you're working to affect the course of the technology's development.

-Jerry
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [soc.men]  Re: A neat story, and a question.
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:40:18 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


Newsgroups: soc.men
From: mrharri@jake.cc.wayne.edu (Marissa Harrison)
Subject:  Re: A neat story, and a question.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:49:50 GMT

In article <FXBL_3C@ais.org> chungkuo@ais.org (Shawn FitzGerald) writes:
>I work in a computer lab at a community college in Michigan. Whiloe working,
>a group of users and another consultant were engaged in conversation with
>me. Topics included masturbation, sex, feminism, and religion. A user
>overheard some thing I said, most of which she found offensive. It should be
>noted that I did not start this conversation, in addition I also tried to
>quite it down when it seemed to be getting too loud. I am now in Deep Doo
>Doo, or at least there is a very real potential for me to be in said Doo
>Doo.
>
[Stuff deleted]

>
>"Oh, and if I offended you I'm sorry, but maybe you needed to be offended.
>Well, here's my apology and one more thing. FUCK YOU!!"
>    --Suicidal Tendancies
>
>-- 
>   Shawn FitzGerald           |   chungkuo@ais.org
>   (Rational Romantic         |   University of Michigan
>    Mystic Cynical Idealist)  |   Computing Club
>"I love you so I keep dreaming . . ." -Bananas, _The House of Blue Leaves_

Wow, I was kind of sympathetic until I got to the last part.  With an
attitude like that, I can see why you got in trouble!  Whew!!

Marissa
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk]  Academic programs in "computers, freedom and privacy"?
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:20:41 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: riddle@is.rice.edu (Prentiss Riddle)
Subject:  Academic programs in "computers, freedom and privacy"?
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:37:48 GMT

I just read Steve Cisler's fascinating account of the Computers,
Freedom and Privacy Conference II in the Effector Online.

It made me wonder: are there any academic degree programs concentrating
on the political, social, ethical and economic issues surrounding the
emerging technologies we're concerned with here?  I don't know what
acdemic department such a program would fall under -- perhaps political
science, communications, philosophy, law or even (what a thought!)
computer science?

Please reply by mail or to comp.org.eff.talk, as you please.  Thanks.

-- Prentiss Riddle ("aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada") riddle@rice.edu
-- Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv]  Re: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 18:07:18 GMT


Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons)
Subject:  Re: The AUP, Common Sense, and the Emperor's Clothes
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 02:49:14 GMT

A few thoughts on acceptable use and this whole topic...

Maybe we should all get in the habit of distinguishing between NSFNet
and the Internet?  NSFNet is now a subset of the Internet, and saying
things like "Internet AUP" are just plain silly.

In case nobody noticed, the post office and the telcos do have
acceptable use policies.  One critical difference between them and the
Internet is that the phone/post office have the same AUP across the
whole "network".  Local corporations with internal phone systems may
have internal AUPs (like no using company longlines to call your Mom)
but they don't have any effect on the outside world.

Heretical statement: I have no problem with the NSFNet AUP.  What I
have problems with is apparent use of the AUP as a marketing tool by
ANS ("Them commercial folks can't hook you to nsfnet, but we can...").
Faugh.  How about treating everybody by the same rules, guys.

IMHO, NSFNet ought to disconnect *ALL* commercial clients, including
ANS.  If they don't want to be the national backbone, that's fine and
understandable.  NSFNet sites who want to deal with commercial groups
should (read: can easily and affordably) buy a commercial link from a
commercial networking company.

The commercial networks should build their own backbone(s), doing all
of (a) co-operative unmetered arrangements like the CIX, (b) private
interconnects between two mutually agreeable parties, (c) buying from a
3rd-party backbone supplier at some mutually-agreed upon rate for
packets and/or bandwidth and/or whatever.  Let the market decide what
kind of arrangement is best.  It's working for phones -- almost all
the complaints I hear about the telephone system today have to do with
the still-regulated parts.

The only reason NSFNet/ANS matters is because they own the backbone.
If, as has been said here, a backbone could be built cheaper and better
with existing off-the-shelf equipment, then let's put our money and
work where our mouths are and DO IT.  Universities etc are *extremely*
price-sensitive, and will switch to commercial carriers if they can
save bucks.  The AUP will become not merely irrelevant, but an active
hindrance to those who use NSFNet.
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [soc.culture.filipino]  bastos sa scf -- score 1
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:41:35 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


Date: Sunday, 12 Apr 1992 12:45:53 CDT
From: <U25720@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.filipino
Subject:  bastos sa scf -- score 1

There have been some offensive posts on scf from my school. I have complained t
o our computer adminstrator about them (the offenders are unfortunately not eve
n filipinos -- two identified so far are chinese and one vietnamese) and one ha
s been warned. These guys better pick on someone else, because we will not give
 in without a fight.
Caloy Arcilla
Dept. of Geological Sciences
==================================================
Received: by UICVM (Mailer R2.07) id 9707; Sat, 11 Apr 92 17:20:38 CDT

Date: 11 April 1992 17:02:50 CDT
From: "Richard K. Wolf (312) 996-8291" <U42641@UICVM>
To:   <U14540@UICVM>,
      <CONSULT@UICVM>,
      <U25720@UICVM>
Subject: Forwarded note below

Mr. Chang:

Pleased be advsied that posts, such as the one you made below, are
considered offensive by other users, both at UIC and elsewhere.  While
we at the Computer Center do not want to limit your right to free speech
we must also consider the effects derived from thoughtless behaviour,
such as yours.

Your account is a priveledge granted to you by the Computer Center.  If
you abuse that priveledge, it will be quickly taken away from you.  I
can think of two instances where accounts have been PERMANENTLY suspended
because their owners were continually bothersome to other users, both
at UIC and on the networks.

Please consider yourself warned.  You are doubtless a responsible adult --
please act like one.  There are several groups on NETNEWS where posts
like yours would be readily accepted and would be considered "the norm."
Please confine posts, like that below, to such groups.

Yours,
Richard K. Wolf
Small Systems Group
Computer Center

=======================================================================
Received: by UICVM (Mailer R2.07) id 6140; Sat, 11 Apr 92 13:54:29 CDT
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 13:47:33 CDT
Reply-To:     UIC General Consultants <CONSULT@UICVM.BITNET>,
              U11892@UICVM.BITNET
From:         U11892@UICVM.BITNET
Subject:      Courtesy in EMail
To:           Richard Wolf <U42641@UICVM.BITNET>

Dear Consultants:
I really respect and love the freedom of speech, but there are some
people who are willing to post anything but hiding in anonymity. These
sample posts, posted on soc.culture.filipino I think are at least
tasteless and offensive. I hope the writer will have enough self-respect
to put his real name on them.


Carlo Arcilla
Dept. of Geological Sciences
University of Illinois at Chicago
=========================================================================
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [comp.admin.policy]  Re: Logging outgoing telnet sessions
Date: 15 Apr 92 05:05:06 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 11:03:43 IST
From: Hank Nussbacher <HANK@BARILVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject:  Re: Logging outgoing telnet sessions

>I don't believe that is any of your business. Where someone telnets to,
>who they send mail to, etc., should not be logged. Your plan sounds
>an awful lot like "Big Brother" to me.

The phone company records every phone call you make.  No one looks
at it until either you feel the bill is wrong and request a detailed
bill or the police feel there is a need to look at who you have been
calling (assuming you are a drug dealer or blackmailer).  You may feel
that the phone company is invading your privacy, but fortunately the
justice system as well as society does not.

The same is true with recording outgoing Telnet sessions.  No one could
care less where you are telneting to, and the logs are usally so large
that *no* sysadmin reads them.  They are there for cases of hacking.

Hank Nussbacher
Bar-Ilan University
Israel
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.bi]  Re: Annoytance with Administration
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 13:50:50 GMT


Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: tal@plts.uucp (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject:  Re: Annoytance with Administration
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:26:58 GMT

In <92094.043101SBIT37@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK> SBIT37@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK writes:

>"Information (including software) accessed by use of the Computer facilities
> may be used only for University purposes (University teaching, research, and
> administration)."

Name any newsgroup, I'll come up with a "University purpose" for it.

For example, when I was in school I made a big push to get news (any
news!) at all.  The reason that the most administrators picked up on
was "This school isn't providing my with an education on certain highly
technical topics especially networking and [a couple other things
lacking at that school]".

Might you suggest that your university provides zero support for
bisexuals while maintaining a special women's center, a counceling
center stocked with people untrained to your needs, etc [add or delete
as is appropriate to your school].   Therefore, it is within the
"University purpose" to provide this service via electronic means
instead.

Another helpful hint:  I've seen many sites almost lose a newsgroup
like alt.sex but it was saved because some high-ranking sysadmin wanted
it.  If this sysadmin's .newsrc file is world-readable, it's ethical to
see what sinful newsgroups he reads and would be willing to protect.
The possibilities are endless.

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@plts.uucp (play) -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv]  Re: Perot and AUP
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1992 17:40:47 GMT


Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (David J. Farber)
Subject:  Re: Perot and AUP
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 01:16:30 GMT

Seems to me that the US got very upset with the Finns when they had  
on their systems material that the US authorities felt was  
inappropriate for US people to access. I HEAR tell we strongly  
insisted it be "removed" from access else the networks connection  
would be terminated.

I wonder if for example, a Finn  sent a message to a Japanese which  
contained material deamed illegal by the US and that message passed  
via the US and was detected, could the Finn, if he came to the US on  
business, be arrested at the border.

Email is not covered under the Postal Conventions.

Ah the ... we set to ....


Dave

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [alt.bbs, et al.]  Re: Your police at work for you!
Date: 7 Apr 92 06:49:10 GMT
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Originator: daemon@eff.org


Newsgroups: alt.bbs,alt.bbs.internet,comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject:  Re: Your police at work for you!
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 19:53:14 GMT

In article <XgTZHB4w165w@waffle.atl.ga.us> cprice@waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price) writes:
>> PS. Go [deleted] Uself!
>
>        This person likes words you can't broadcast on radio. Instead he
>broadcasts them on the net.  Can a reasonably knowledgable person
>address the _legality_ of broadcasting voice-unbroadcastable terms on
>the net?  (Preferably with statute numbers and judicial citations.)

Broadcasting regulations do not apply to the net. The judicial basis for
content regulation of broadcasting by the FCC lies in arguments that the
broadcasting spectrum is a scarce resource (Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC,
1969) and that it is a uniquely pervasive medium (FCC v. Pacifica
Foundation, 1978). FCC regulation of broadcasting is thus an exception to
the general rule that the government cannot regulate the content of First
Amendment-protected exercises of freedom of expression.

There is no court case or statute holding that the FCC's content
restrictions on legal obscenity (the use of the word "fuck" is not,
itself, legally obscene in any state) or on "indecency" (e.g., George
Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" monolog) applies to the Internet, or to any
other medium.

>        There _are_ limits to "free speech", and I'd like to find the
>legal references.  Thanks.

The limits on freedom of speech are perhaps not as extensive as you think
they are. See, for example, Ithiel de Sola Pool's TECHNOLOGIES OF FREEDOM,
Melville Nimmer's NIMMER ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or Lawrence Tribe's
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Les vrais paradis sont les paradis
mnemonic@eff.org | qu'on a perdus."
(617) 864-0665   | 
EFF, Cambridge   |          --Marcel Proust
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy, et al.]  Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 05:54:55 GMT


From: richardt@Apple.COM (Richard Threadgill)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,rec.games.mud
Subject:  Re: MUDS: Network menace, or just another service?
Date: 13 Apr 92 00:49:24 GMT

Of course, all of this discussion of the Acceptable Use Policy may very soon
become moot, as it is now undergoing Congressional review.  Thus far, the
reports have been mixed, but the AUP was subjected to fairly severe
criticism in the last round of hearings and the NSF is busily pouring 
over their justifications for the AUP.

RichardT