From: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:59:35 -0500
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.59
Newsgroups: comp.society

[See the end of this article for information about obtaining the full
CAF-News electronically and about CAF-News in general.]

Topics discussed in CAF-News 02.59:

   1-5    shed new light and offer new views on the ongoing child-
               porn/Usenet controversy at Cornell University
   6      reminds us that Cornell is certainly not the only school
               restricting access to Usenet
   7-8    raise the question: How accountable must computing centers at
               state-run universities be to the taxpayers
   9-12   list computing policies at four universities

Abstract of CAF-News 02.59:
[Week ending November 29, 1992

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

Notes 1-5 shed new light and offer new views on the ongoing
child-porn/Usenet controversy at Cornell University.

1.  A student was arrested, and his dorm searched, by the FBI in connection
with possible illegal materials he had been posting to alt.binaries.pictures.
erotica.  "According to the Cornell Daily Sun report I read, his neighbours
were altogether unsurprised that he was caught for this particular crime. I
have found Stuart Lynn to not be an overly zealous system administrator. His
reaction to the virus (where again students were arrested) and to this
incidence (which involves the Feds) was exactly what was warranted."
        <1992Nov24.125748.19653@shaman.com>

2.  "Access to alt.binaries.pictures.* is not a fundamental human right," says
one observer.  Carl Kadie responds: "I hope Cornell decision was based on
competent legal advice rather than the rationale you suggest. Your rationale
is too broad; it could be used to justify almost any ban of almost any
material."  (With annotated references.)
        <By9Iq6.313@cs.uiuc.edu>

3.  To plead academic freedom when trying to save a newsgroup "ignores the
common decision problem when demands for academic resources far outstrip the
funds available for such resources."  The decision not to carry alt.*.*.
erotica may simply reflect the prudent "allocation of funds."
        <1992Nov25.210004.12913@netcom.com>

4.  But even if that were so, Carl responds, the decision to discontinue
"challenged materials" (such as controversial newsgroups) should probably
be the outcome of formal due process.  With that, Carl lists the American
Library Association's statement on challenged materials, an interpretation
of the ALA's "Library Bill of Rights."
        <ByG6G1.7LC@cs.uiuc.edu>

5.  On a related note, this note quotes relevant passages from the U.S.
Criminal Code that explains exactly what jurisprudence understands
"child pornography" to be.
        <1992Nov29.222815.5416@qiclab.scn.rain.com>

Note 6 reminds us that Cornell is certainly not the only school
restricting access to Usenet.

6.  "Our Computation Center [at Iowa State University] has developed a
policy to restrict access to Usenet. It basically sets up a three tier
system: Focused access, which eliminates all alt. and rec. groups;
Standard access, which eliminates alt.personals.bondage, alt.sex,
alt.sex.bestiality ,alt.sex.bondage, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica,
alt.sex.motss ,alt.sex.pictures ,alt.sex.pictures.d
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d; and Full access, which allows all
groups."  Guess which type of access the students get!
        <ESAGE.92Nov29170046@occs.cs.oberlin.edu>

Notes 7-8 raise the question: How accountable must computing centers
at state-run universities be to the taxpayers?

7.  From a Ball State sysadmin: "My concern is with the perception of some in
our university administration that most of what the cluster is used for is
email among students, largely for social purposes, and that that use is not
academic and should not be supported. [...] To keep [this issue] continually
to the fore is paranoid, but to ignore it completely is reckless.
        <1992Nov25.084901.12342@bsu-ucs>

8.  From another Ball State employee: "I, and many others, have  benefited
greatly as a result - the use of EMail results in a  terrific amount of idea
exchange, etc. The net result of this is that there is more computer literacy
on  this campus than any other campus I have ever seen."  And interestingly,
"in 99% of the  complaints I have heard, the user wants special privileges
ABOVE  AND BEYOND the normal privs granted."  Which is not to say that the
legislature doesn't have a "valid point," since "they DO grant the funding."
        <3205@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>

Notes 9-12 list computing policies at four universities.

9.  Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, where users may be punished for "Using
any computer facility to violate the Grounds for Disciplinary Action
(e.g. harassment, fraud, falsifying information, academic dishonesty, etc.)
Note:  Harassment is that which is annoying or threatening to the person
receiving the message or action"!
        <9211292124.AA01302@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>

10.  Louisiana Tech, which declares that "Fraudulent, harassing or obscene
messages and/or other materials are not to be sent or stored." Just in case
you do try storing them, "Computer Center personnel may access others' files
when necessary for the maintenance of central computer systems [... and] if
violations are discovered, they will be reported immediately to the
appropriate Vice President."  Also, the Robert Morrises of the South are not
allowed to "deliberately attempt to degrade the performance of a computer
system."
        <9211292125.AA01310@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>

11.  This is a very long and thorough policy on computing at the University of
North Texas which establishes a committee, three titles, and an ombudsman's
position for computing, defines the roles of everybody in the academic
community w.r.t. computing, establishes sanctions for faculty, staff, and
students who don't comply, and even offers official definitions of terms such
as "workstation" and "computer installation."
        <9211292125.AA01321@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>

12.  The University of Nebraska (Omaha), which decrees that "No one should
attempt to encroach on others' use of the facilities or deprive them of
resources."  And that "student, faculty and staff accounts, issued for
legitimate classroom or office work, must not be used for private consulting
and/or personal financial gain."  Other than that, have fun.
        <9211292126.AA01324@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>

- Aaron Barnhart]


About CAF-News:

The abstract is for the most recent "Computers and Academic Freedom News"
(CAF-News). 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/cafv02n59".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:

send caf-news cafv02n59


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, Aaron Barnhart, 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 =