From: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:50:40 -0400
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.45
Newsgroups: comp.society

This is an abstract for the most recent "Computers and Academic
Freedom News" (CAF-News). Information about CAF-News follows the
abstract. The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n45".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:

send caf-news cafv02n45

--- begin abstract ---
[Week ending September 13, 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.
===============================================================

  [This week's guest editor is John B. Tan.

   We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
   email to kadie@eff.org. Issues #41,43,46-48 are in production.
   - Carl]

Notes 1-2 are about an incident of intellectual property theft

1.  ("A definite beginner in my profession":) One of my projects is being
distributed as networked resources without my consent or the copyright
statement intact.  This person is influential and powerful within my
profession and by fighting I may put my fledgling career at risk.  I need
advice badly.
    <199209080137.AA01381@eff.org>

2.  Only you yourself can decide whether or not to resist.  Should you
decide to fight:   (1)  Keep a meticulous log of all contacts and
conversations regarding the incident.  (2)  Seek out allies stronger than
your offender.  'Many schools have some form of "professional conduct"
board who's mission is to review such charges.  In other cases, it may be
the Dean or VP for Academic Affairs.'  (3)  Make your case with the key
individual(s) identified above.
    <1992Sep8.120236.4910@scott.skidmore.edu>

Note 3 is a critique of the computer policy of University of Hawaii,
College of Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

3.   The policy, although a pretty good attempt at making the rules
explicit, violates legal and moral requirements for due process, privacy,
free expression, and user participation in some places.  It asserts that
computer use is a privilege and not a right, which, if not well clarified,
will allow "sys admins the authority to summarily suspend users from the
computer *before* establishing that the user has done anything".  The
policy also empowers a sys admin to search a user's email and files without
having to seek higher authorization or to notify the user.  The policy was
apparently created and enforced without the participation of the user
community.
   <1992Sep8.163018.8554@eff.org>

Note 4-5 is about a student being denied a hearing under the Student Due
Process Policy at WSU.

4.  Things have not changed in WSU (writes John Palmer).  Only recently in
1991,  the "C&IT denied a student account to someone, and when that someone
tried to get a judicial hearing under the Student Due Process Policy, the
C&IT (and university attorneys) argued that the student wasn't being
disciplined, but was being denied access to "protect other users", so he
didn't have any rights at all."  A letter from the C&IT said that the
Student Due Process Policy "applies only when the University (or another
charging party) seeks to discipline a student, [and] 'Discipline' consists
of expulsion, suspension, probation, etc."  The letter goes on to add that
"What has happened [is not disciplinary action but] is that the C&IT has
declined to facilitate your access to the computer because of your past
history of abusing the University computing system."
   <1992Sep8.171858.8639@tygra.Michigan.COM>

5.  [Carl writes,with supporting annotated references available from ftp.]
"Ohio State University used the same kind of Humpty Dumpty redefinition of
words when they expelled Steven Brack from the computer. (We are not
authorized to punish you, therefore the stuff we did to you must not be
punishment.) I'm confident that if such a case every got the court, the
University would lose."
  <1992Sep8.212232.16054@eff.org>

Note 6 is about a court decision on a free speech dispute at SFA University

6.  A year ago, a group of students at Stephen F. Austin University (the
Young Conservatives of Texas) hung fliers which read, "SEX and politics are
a lot alike. You don't have to be good at them to enjoy them."  SFA
officials called the fliers sexist and tried to bar the group from posting
them.  With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the
students filed a federal lawsuit May 15, asking that the SFA sign-posting
policy be overturned.  A settlement has apparently being reached, with an
undetermined amount of money included, and the new policy agreed to allows
the poster that started the controversy, and allows school officials "to
regulate how large posters can be and where they are placed."  However,
"the school may take down a sign that the president deems will incite
fights or ``imminent lawlessness'' - concepts defined strictly by federal
courts."
   <1992Sep8.183722.834@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

Note 7 is summary of the 1992-1993 Guidelines for use of Campus and Network
Computing Resources at Princeton University

7.  This framework for "responsible, considerate, and ethical behavior" in
the use of the university's computing resources include reminders to users
not to: "intentionally seek information ...  belonging to other people";
"decrypt or translate encrypted material, or obtain [unauthorized] system
privileges";  tie up computing resources in "excessive game playing or
other trivial applications [such as the] sending [of] frivolous or
excessive mail".   A user's absence from a public computer or workstation
should be "no longer than warranted by a visit to the nearest restroom" and
"a device unattended for more than ten minutes may be assumed to be
available for use".  Electronic mail "must meet the same standards for
distribution or display as if they were tangible documents" and changes to
electronic information contained in the network "will be considered forgery
if it would be considered so on a tangible document or instrument."
<1992Sep8.193517.12597@eff.org>

Notes 8 - 10 discusses some issues on E-mail Privacy/Snooping

8.  The Background:  A staff worker of MCI Mail, looked into the contents
of ex-employee Eugene Wang's MCI Mail account, and discovered Borland's
marketing plans and other confidential information sent to Symantec Corp.
This brought civil suits against Gordon Eubanks, president of Symantec, and
Wang.  The Question:  Did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's
email?
<1992Sep9.231718.1863@PacBell.COM>

9.  What the staff worker did seems apparently legal.  The Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 specifically exempts providers of
electronic communications services from the prohibitions against seeing the
messages.  In addition, the worker has the right to divulge what is
inadvertently discovered to law enforcement agencies if it pertains to a
crime.  However, did the worker stumble upon the evidence by chance or was
he actually snooping around?
   <BuDuGM.EIB@rice.edu>

10.   When I was a LAN administrator for a medium sized company, what I did
when closing a user account was nuke the email, make a quick pass through
their directories and nuke anything that appeared to be personal.
Remaining files were referred to their supervisor.  "Yes, we read 'private'
files. But it was our job to cleanup the account, and better *us* than
their supervisor! I frankly couldn't have told you the next day what had
been in 90% of the files that got deleted as 'personal'".  I could read any
file on the LAN, but there are something like 4 gigabytes of files out
there and therefore if I *wanted* to snoop, it will not be possible,
there's just too much to go thru!
   <1992Sep11.234228.25430@qiclab.scn.rain.com>

11.  "This isn't necessarily true, particularly if you want to "target" a
few individuals with well-organized directories."!
   <BuGAKy.J47@ef2007.efhd.ford.com>

12.  Although the employee of the mail provider is permitted some access, I
don't think they are allowed to go on snooping expeditions.  However, from
the [long sections from the law apart from the ECPA quoted], it would
appear that employees of service providers are definitely protected if they
access messages as part of their normal duties.  "It's not clear what the
penalties are for improper disclosure by an employee as they are not
directly listed.  The previous section ... includes fines of $5000 and
imprisonment up to 6 months for unlawful access if no commercial advantage
occurs (much worse if commercial advantage occurs), but says that conduct
authorized by a provider is excepted.  Very confusing." If reading someone
else's mail, before it is deleted, is normal procedure at MCI Mail,
customers should be told and they might be upset.
   <1992Sep12.165743.7720@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>

- John B. Tan]






--- end   abstract ---

CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.

CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line

send acad-freedom caf

Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:

send acad-freedom README
help
index

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, John F. Nixon 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.


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