From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: The Schedule of Classes
Organization: University of Kentucky Engineering Computing Center
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:10:24 GMT

kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) wrote:
>In any case, Berkeley's attempt controls were much broader; they tried
>to restrict access to the information because they didn't approve of
>how they thought it would be used.

No, that isn't quite right (as I understand it).  According to Eric's
announcement, he was told by the Registrar that they did not want copies
floating around without updates.  They restricted access because it could
not <or would not> be properly maintained/updated.  There's a BIG difference.  

There are only so many ways for a Schedule of Classes to be used.  This
part of the argument goes nowhere.

>[...]
>>Give us a break, Carl.  What good would it do to throw online
>>copies to whomever wanted them (or throw one up for anonymous
>>FTP), if those copies will be obsolete within a day?
>[...]
>
>This is not for a unit of government to decide. The government *does*
>sometimes have grounds to restrict information (e.g. privacy, national
>security). None of those grounds apply here.

OK, then let's hear your opinion.  Of what benefit is an online copy
of a class schedule that will be obsolete within a day?  You can't
plan your schedule with it, right?  If you do, you may very well get
burned and have to jump through even more hoops to register....yeah,
that obsolete online schedule was *really* handy......

>>Do you acknowledge that: 
>>	- The Registrar's Office is obliged to ensure its accuracy?
>
>NO, the government has no authority to restrict otherwise public
>information on these grounds. If it did, it would be able to restrict
>*all* government information.

That isn't what I asked, now, is it?  I asked if the Registrar's Office
is obliged to provide accurate class/course information to students.  I
never asked what that obligation *entailed*.

>>perhaps he should be <somewhat> grateful that he doesn't face charges such 
>>as disregarding instructions of University staff in performance of their 
>>duties <he asked permission and was refused, for the very reasons I've 
>>stated.> 
>[...]
>
>I don't believe he was instructed not to download the data himself.

True, he didn't ask if he could download it himself.  He asked for an
online copy <via email>.  The difference is not particularly significant.

According to his own online statement, he was told that:

	a) The Registrar's Office would not give him an online copy
	      AND
	b) The Registrar's Office did not want online copies which
	   could not <or would not> be kept accurate.

Eric then goes out, snarfs a copy, puts it up for anonymous ftp and 
advertises it.  Doesn't it seem as though the spirit of the Registrar's
wishes were violated, if not their explicit words?  

[ Had he just downloaded a copy for his own use, I wouldn't be arguing ]
[ at all; by setting it up for FTP, he misinformed <with inaccurate    ]
[ information> everyone who used it.                                   ]

I guess that I have to append "so don't do that" to every handout and
policy document I write, just to have an explicit order, eh?  

--Wes

-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | University of Kentucky |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | Lexington,Kentucky USA | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,ucb.english,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk