HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: The Schedule of Classes
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:15:30 GMT


It doesn't matter that UC Berkeley thought publishing an unupdateable
schedule on-line was a bad idea. As a unit of government, they are
obligated morally and (if California has a freedom of information act)
legally to release such information.

Even worse, after failing in their duty to release the information,
they tried to punish the student for exercising his *right* to publish it.

(In other words, I think that his
  1) unpluging a data cable
  2) using the cable
  3) plugging the cable back in
was considered an offense *only* because of the content of the data
extracted.)

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: SPA vs. Universities
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 02:32:58 GMT

According to the 9/24/92 Cornell University staff newspaper:

"Misuse of software has received increasing attention thanks to the Software
Publishers Association in Washington, D.C. Nicknamed the software police, this
industry group has filed more than 100 lawsuits since 1989, forcing   the
collection of penalties as high as $350,000. Federal armed marshals bearing
court orders have surprised more than one corporate official.
[...]
The [Software Publishers Association] also was responsible for a
$130,000 settlement against the University of Oregon, the first
copyright infringement suit brought against a public college,
according to the association.

The industry group also says that another, unnamed university is under
investigation.[...]"

So, 1) does anyone know the full story about U. of Oregon?
    2) did the SPA get a search warrant to search every file on every
       computer at U. of Oregon? If so, wouldn't that violate
       constitutional protections against "fishing expedition"
       searches?
    3) alternatively, did the SPA intimidate the U. of Oregon into
       seaching every file on every computer. If so, won't that
       violate the same constitutional protections?

- Carl


-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@eff.org (J S Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Cornell changes computer speech policy
Originator: greeny@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 04:50:56 GMT

In article <C1KKv9.99M@ms.uky.edu> morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>
>I realize that Cornell is a private university, but I would hope that
>they endorse the very freedoms that allow them to exist as such.....

Actually, Wes, it's worse than that, in this regard.  Not quite half of the
colleges at Cornell actually are *state* colleges.  However, Cornell has
bee treated by the courts as a private institution, as the the majority
of the colleges are privately endowed.  I am not familiar with the level
of legislative involvement with decision-making.  My guess is that the
Board of Trustees is essentially an autonomous body, as with other private
institutions.


>>According to the two-page document, the University "reserves the right to dis-
>>connect from its networks those computers (whether or not owned by the
>>University) used to transmit material in violation of university policies
>>or codes, or state or federal laws."  
>
>One user's transmission of, say, a sexually explicit GIF, could cause the
>disconnection of system with 1000 users?  Yikes!  Do they realize that
>"disconnect from its networks" includes things like email, NFS file sharing,
>and other essential services that could impede both other systems on campus
>and faculty/staff/student work?
>
>What about the other 999 users of our hypothetical system?  Ouch!

I thought that they meant that they would disconnect locally-connected
computers from the network.  I don't know how they would plan to do so.
My guess is that they really mean that an individual can lose their access,
even if the "contraband" is found on their *own* computer!!

In theory, I guess they reserve the right to shut down a connection with
another site.  Butit wasn't my impression that this is what they meant.


When I left Cornell in 1988, work was still being done on astudent "bill of
rights."  Does anyone at Cornell know whether or not such a document was
actually adopted, and if so, what it says?  If it contained any provisions
regarding free speech, this might easily violate them.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here,                            greeny@eff.org 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,ucb.english,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: The Schedule of Classes
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:29:00 GMT

bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:

[...]
>For example, I think Carl's view about "public information" is too simple.
>If the information in question were the telephone directory, for example, ...
[...]

Phone book information, and other student directory information is
special. Among other things, its dissemination is regulated by the
Family Education Rights and Privacy Act.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
law/ferpa
=================
* Privacy -- School Records -- FERPA -- Excerpts

Excerpts from _College and University Student Records: A Legal
Compendium_, Edited by Joan E. Van Tol, 1989. Details the Family
Education Rights and Privacy Act's (Buckley Amendment's) provisions on
directory information.

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

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also 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/law/ferpa

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/law ferpa
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  Re: apparent censorship of some newgroups
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,aus.aarnet
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:00:36 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
From: pod@sour.sw.oz.au (Paul O'Donnell)
Subject:  Re: apparent censorship of some newgroups
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:39:31 GMT

In <1jqmgvINN49t@kralizec.zeta.org.au> craig@kralizec.zeta.org.au (Craig Dewick) writes:

>This has probably already been thrashed out,

Yes it has.

>but why is it that certain
>newsgroups are being prevented from reaching our shores?

>As an underlying link to Internet, this automatically consigns AARnet
>administrators to follow Internet policy, which is that ALL information should
>be freely available to ALL users of the system. It's obvious that AARnet's
>admin people believe otherwise.

Hmmm, first I've heard of such a policy.  Do you have a reference
for it?  Be careful not to confuse Usenet with the Internet.
-- 
Paul O'Donnell - Softway Pty Ltd         |"You're just saying that because
Internet: pod@softway.sw.oz.au           |you don't understand art."
Phone: +61 2 698-2322 Fax: +61 2 699-9174|     - Jeremy Fitzhardinge
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,aus.aarnet
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:53:24 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: newton@monty.apana.org.au (Mark Newton)
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
Subject:  Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 15:13:52 +1030

jonathan@psych.psy.uq.oz.au (Jonathan Dwyer) writes:
> If the discussion of AARNet and its content ever hits shows like
> Hinch, Current Affair or even 7:30 Report, we all know that the
> 'outraged (not to mention recession-squeezed) taxpayer' routine
> will be dragged out, leading to the government imposed 'quick fix'
> to mollify the supposed 'outraged taxpayers'.

The story has already hit the papers, in the form of a ten column-inch
article in The Sunday Mail last year.

There was no furore, no controversy, no followup story.  It was just
a dead issue.

I believe it would be different if fourteen year-olds had access to
AARNet, but in general they don't.

Anyway, all that is beside the point.  Banning something simply
because the media might hear about it is abhorrent to me.

  - mark
    [ who doesn't get any binary groups at all, 'cos they're too
      expensive ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-control:  The ability to eat          newton@monty.apana.org.au
    only one peanut.                                     Mark Newton
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ucb.org.csua, et al.]  Re: The Schedule of Classes
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,ucb.english,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:55:16 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: hh@soda.berkeley.edu (Eric Hollander)
Newsgroups: ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,ucb.english,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject:  Re: The Schedule of Classes
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:03:13 GMT

In article <1jo3d5$t34@agate.berkeley.edu> zyin@soda.berkeley.edu (Zheng Yin) writes:
:In article <1jnh89$phg@agate.berkeley.edu> hh@soda.berkeley.edu (Eric Hollander) writes:
:>I believe that computers exist to provide access to information.  Using a
:>computer to give me this access can never be misuse.
:
:Such an interpretation would license you to engage in activities not as 
:"altrustic" as your transfer of Schedule of Classes data, such as access 
:and probably alternation of the academic record of any student.  The 
:University, the government, and millions of individuals handle data on 
:computers and over networks.  This by no means implies that you can insert 
:your own computer into their network and gain access to their information, 
:with impunity.

I intended to say that I advocated access to all "public" information.  Any
idiot with $0.50 can acquire access to the SoC.  This makes it "public
information".  Phone books, law books, and many other pieces of information
are "public", and, as such, the "public" should have a right to them.

Grades, credit information, private email and any other non-public
information should be strictly guarded and never released without the
consent of the "owners" of the information.

e
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: K-12 schools and Usenet feeds
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Date: 21 Jan 1993 10:27:30 GMT
Organization: Fachschaft math/inf, Uni Karlsruhe, FRG
NNTP-Posting-Host: irau29.ira.uka.de

In article <1993Jan20.132505.8020@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:

> So you are in favor of dumping a full feed into K-8 students' laps?
> I'd like to see you talking to a parent whose 9-year-old brings home
> hardcopy of *.pictures or some of the raunchier alt.sex.* material.

I have missed the point that the system talked about extends that far.
From the original posting (and I had no other information) I assumed
that it was only about *high schools*. I agreee that for elementary
schools, a different approach has to be taken, (but this matches books
and TV shows as well) and perhaps the whole USENET is not that
well-suited for them. NOT because of perhaps some "nasty words", but
because of its whole culture.

>...
> Apparently (according to the discussion here), a "censored" feed is any feed 
> that does not contain each and every available group.  I'd guess that over 90% 
> of Usenet readers are using a censored feed, if we accept that definition.  
> Right?

A censored feed, by my definition, is a feed from which some certain
groups or articles are deliberately cut out because some admin or
authority deems their content "unsuitable" for distribution, based
on his/her own opinion. This *excludes*

- sites which carry only selected groups based on *technical*
constraints, but are willing to add more groups on demand (we have one
here too, which would simply crash under a full feed)
- sites whose users have *agreed* to not carry certain material

Censorship is a restriction of the freedom of speech (active) and
information (passive) that gets imposed upon people by other people
without their participation. It is a thing that contradicts democracy.
Censorship needs the technical power to block "unwanted" free
expression, and the administrative power to decide "par order du
mufti" what is unwanted.

(I'm not sure if your percentage is right. In Germany, most
university-bound feeds do indeed match *my* definition of censorship.)

Olaf

-- 
| Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student  |   o     | uknf@dkauni2.bitnet | old address |
| univ. of karlsruhe - germany |  _>\ _  | s_titz@ira.uka.de   | is still    |
| +49-721-60439                | (_)<(_) | praetorius@irc      | valid       |
  "My heart is human - my blood is boiling - my brain IBM" - Mr. Roboto
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: [ucb.org.csua, et al.]  Re: The Schedule of Classes
Organization: University of Kentucky Engineering Computing Center
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:26:14 GMT

>From: hh@soda.berkeley.edu (Eric Hollander)
>
>I would like to make this point again: infocal is now up for telnet, so the
>copy of the SoC I put on soda is now obsolete.  

You mean that they weren't really "afraid of change", as you claimed in
your FTP statement? (Get /classes/statement from soda.berkeley.edu via FTP.)

By the way, why am I still able to snag a copy of your "now obsolete" bootleg
copy of the Schedule from soda.berkeley.edu?  This illustrates my point per-
fectly; here's a document that should (no, make that *must*) be maintained
in a timely manner, and you show complete disregard for that need.  Providing
out-of-date information is not a service at all..........that's probably why
the Registrar didn't want multiple copies floating around outside their con-
trol.

I think that the Registrar's Office showed far more concern for the *real*
needs of the students (timely, accurate information) than you did.

>We need to work on other issues.  

"I don't think I was wrong, but I don't want to talk about it any more."  Feh.

>The Student Phone Directory is one I would like to attack now.
>This will be tough, although the information itself is even more public than
>the SoC was.  I'm going to try a few possible routes to getting that.  I
>will probably need to do some legal manoevering.  I will keep you posted
>about what's hapening, where to send letters to, etc.

I wouldn't have any problem with a *controlled* online copy of the phonebook.
We have this at UK, and it is regularly updated.  I'd hate to see bootleg
copies floating around without updates.......could make for some real con-
fusion.  As a sysadmin, I don't even want to *think* about the massive disk
crunch when a few dozen students decide that they have to have a personal
copy.....

>I will do some research into this, too, and find out who we will have to
>harass.

"have to harass"........that's just a great attitude, isn't it? 

--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
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [ucb.org.csua, et al.]  Re: The Schedule of Classes
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,ucb.english,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:55:28 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,ucb.english,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject:  Re: The Schedule of Classes
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:11:23

In article <1jo3d5$t34@agate.berkeley.edu> zyin@soda.berkeley.edu (Zheng Yin) writes:

   Xref: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU talk.environment:10186 comp.org.eff.talk:13279
Path: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!agate!soda.berkeley.edu!zyin
   From: zyin@soda.berkeley.edu (Zheng Yin)
   Newsgroups: ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,ucb.english,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk
   Date: 22 Jan 1993 06:15:01 GMT
   Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
   Lines: 11
   Distribution: inet
   References: <1jnh89$phg@agate.berkeley.edu>
   NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

   In article <1jnh89$phg@agate.berkeley.edu> hh@soda.berkeley.edu (Eric Hollander) writes:
   >I believe that computers exist to provide access to information.  Using a
   >computer to give me this access can never be misuse.

   Such an interpretation would license you to engage in activities not as 
   "altrustic" as your transfer of Schedule of Classes data, such as access 
   and probably alternation of the academic record of any student.  The 
   University, the government, and millions of individuals handle data on 
   computers and over networks.  This by no means implies that you can insert 
   your own computer into their network and gain access to their information, 
   with impunity.

What I understand he did in replacing his terminal by a powerbook was
to take information available one class at a time and use it to get
the schedule as a whole.  It is a nice point as to whether the
University could claim that the whole is confidential, although each
of its parts is not.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:4037 comp.org.eff.talk:9268
From: ooblick@intercon.com (Mikki Barry)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: CPF '93: Any interest in a CAF BOF session?
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:19:42 GMT
Reply-To: ooblick@intercon.com (Mikki Barry)
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: discord.intercon.com
X-Newsreader: InterCon TCP/Connect II 1.1b37

In article <1993Jan24.183037.20286@eff.org>, kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) 
writes:
> Is there interest in a Computers and Academic Freedom Birds-of-a-
> Feather Session at Computers Privacy and Freedom Conference '93? 

There would have been interest if CFP hadn't decided to schedule itself 
opposite Interop!
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  Re: Censorchip on AARNET
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,aus.aarnet
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:40:16 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
From: wales@ringss.enet.dec.com (David Wales)
Subject:  Re: Censorchip on AARNET
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:27:19 GMT


G'Day,

In article <1993Jan20.084614.11293@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au>,

>carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:

>What I want to know is - who banned alt.sexual.abuse.recovery?
>(Apparently it got lumped in with all the other alt.sex newsgroups -
>which is an entireley inappropriate generalisation). Who does one
>have to lobby to get this ban revoked?

	We are always told that the reason for the censoring of the alt.sex.*
and alt.drugs hierarchy is that NASA didn't want to be seen to be paying for
the transmission of said groups from the US to Oz (they pay for half the link).
Now what is to stop some local person creating the same hierarchy but instead
of being alt.sex.* make it aus.sex.*?  If the distribution was set to aus then
there should be no traffic outside of Australia (although this is not always
the case as the message that I am following up to was set for aus dist. but it
made it to my server which is in the US).  If these groups were created would
somebody then come up with another excuse for not allowing them?

David. 	

-- 
==============================================================================
|David Wales (VK2KWD) Sydney, Australia |Internet: wales@ringss.enet.dec.com |
|                                       |UUCP:     decwrl!ringss.enet!wales  |
| "Only 35 years 'til retirement!"      |                                    |
|                                       |                                    |
| Opinions expressed are mine and       |Voice:  (61) 2 561-6553 (Work)      |
| mine only!                            |FAX:    (61) 2 561-6527             |
==============================================================================

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk