HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
Subject: Hornet's nests, swizzle sticks, and Carl M Kadie.
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:25:49 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.


    There has never been so much traffic on comp.admin.policy.  I know that
Carl Kadie has been harrassing, cajolling, bugging, explaining, talking,
citing, interpreting, and argueing about academic freedom for years. The
banned material list, though, is definately his biggest hit.

     I would like to take the time to thank him for his efforts. He appears
on almost every group I read, and is consistently thoughful and accurate
in his articles. Hear hear!

     And now, an original poem:

                The .plan blues

             I like my .plan
             it is very clever.
             but some of the words,
             you may want to hear never.

             But I won't change it.
             I'll just "Let it be."
             I don't care about you
             or for your policy.

             I like to have "Freedom"
             with "Ac-a-dem-ic."
             So by my .plan
             I'm going to stick.

             So if you do not
             like just what you see.
             Then please learn to use
             finger [space] minus p.

DanZ

-- 
    "I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
     foriegn policy to Carl Kadie."
                                                     -Mike Godwin
This article for entertainment purposes only.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:31:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.151336.28408@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.141004.9029@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>
>>>10. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U
>>>Wyoming.  I provided access to this software to other users.  Upon
>>>receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all
>>>users who had used IRC.  In order to get their accounts back, the
>>
>>You may think this a violation of academic freedom.  I don't.  If the
>>situation arose here, I would have no choice but to act quite similarly.
>
>Really? What would compel you to remove access for all users who had ever
>used IRC?
>
>>Think about it.  We have students with homework assignments due.  They
>>risk failing their course if they don't complete them on time.  But
>>when they try they find that all ports on the terminal server are tied
>>up by users on IRC.  Now tell me whose rights are being abused.
>
>Couldn't this problem be solved be removing IRC itself rather than by
>removing users' access?
>

Well this should at least be a message to those hapless students who happen
to have a shred of code in their $HOMEs that somebody might not like:
encrypt everything.  It's the only way to keep unprincipled people
from snooping in your stuff, whether they have "legal" access or not.
A little script prompting for passwords that would encrypt and decrypt
one's $HOME would be a useful little thing to make.

Paul Southworth                    |     ftp redspread.css.itd.umich.edu
Consulting and Support Services    |        Anonymous Political Archives
Information Technology Division    |                     100% 386BSD 0.1
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor  |  Coming soon: mirror of ftp.eff.org

  <Representing myself.  Everything I say is for educational use only.>
From: 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: System security versus censorshipDIR
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:05:01 GMT

In article <BvptFu.7F1@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.085545.10128@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
> 
>>I'd like to see the budget of the school where system managers have time to go
>>'stomping through the filesystem, searching for "burglary tools,"' not to
>>mention their ethics code.
> 
> Agreed.  On the other hand, when you say that you "do not allow" users
> to keep such tools on the university computer system, either you do
> such a thing or the policy largely goes unenforced.
> 
                                           
Your implied syllogism doesn't compute, Tim. 

We do not allow our users to keep in their accounts code that will, if run,
threaten system security.  Does it happen?  I'm sure of it.  Does the policy go
unenforced?  Not if someone runs that code or does something else that
necessitates our review of his/her user account.  I won't suggest a legal
analogy, but I'm sure you can think one up if you wish.  OK, speeding comes to
mind.

We don't inspect user accounts unless probable cause exists that we'd better do
so, and then it is done only with proper, fairly high-level authorization.  I'd
be surprised if we've had to do this half a dozen times a year, and I don't
recall that many in the last year.

Can a user get away with violating the policy?  Easily.  Is that the same as
saying that the policy goes unenforced?  Not in my opinion, but then we differ
as to what enforcement means.

Herb Stahlke
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.cwis-l]  RE: Banned Computer Material 1992
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,eff.mail.cwis-l
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:33:18 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: eff.mail.cwis-l
From: pflynn@CURIA.UCC.IE (Peter Flynn)
Subject:  RE: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:45:40 GMT

Under *Ireland*, add "also the whole alt.sex hierarchy and some individual
alt. groups".

Perhaps we should start an alt.vice.presidents (maybe there is one :-)

///Peter
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2956 comp.org.eff.talk:6123 comp.admin.policy:1135 alt.censorship:7766 soc.college:4063
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:42:33 GMT
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> [ ... description of user-configurable session names ...]
>
>While there is no censorship of any kind of .plan files or news
>postings or email -- the staff is very strict about keeping freedom of
>expression open on those lines -- users are not permitted to have
>process names that others might find "objectionable," in terms of
>profanity.  This restriction is in effect primarily because it is very
>easy to see other process names "accidentally," whereas people have to
>go out of their way to read news or .plan files.  I don't quite agree
>with that distinction, but c'est la vie.

Well, the same situation exists under Unix, where a "ps -eaf" or "ps aux"
command will list the processes for all users.  I've had a few users who
named their programs with "offensive" words.

>The "punishment" for breaking this rule is very mild: a brief note
>from the computer center director explaining the rule and the reasons
>for it.  I have no idea what would happen to repeat offenders, but I
>suspect very little; very few things would cause you actually to lose
>your account at Amherst.

When I see such a thing, I drop a piece of email explaining that everyone
can see their process names.  I don't tell them to cease and desist; I just
say "hey, did you know what anyone on the system can see that?"  Most of my 
users don't even realize that others can see that information; I've never 
had a "repeat offender".

I think that this sort of thing is often born of frustration.....I've often
been tempted to call my FORTRAN code by various obscenties....8)

>Any thoughts?  This seems like a borderline case to me.

As long as it's a friendly matter (as it seems to be so far), I think that
the informative angle is okay.  If they start punishing offenders, that's 
a different story.  As I said, I've never had a repeating problem in this
area; most users are embarassed to find out that others can see.....8)

--Wes

-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.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: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:28:36 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

[...]
>Betsy, this looks very much like censorship to me. A user's .plan file is
>not normally *forced* on anyone; what is the logic to regulating its
>content?
[...]

An argument could be made that it is forced on (or at least thrust at)
unsuspecting users. Legally, however, I don't think this matters. What
matters is if they can get away from it and still work or go to
school.

As _Cohen v. California_ says:

"... The ability of government, consistent with the Constitution, to
shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in
other words, dependent upon the showing that substantial privacy
interest are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any
broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to
silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections."

- Carl

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: 00hfstahlke@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: System security versus censorship
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:11:16 GMT

To go into any details on a matter such as that cited on the Banned Computer
Materials 1992 listing would be a violation of privacy.  However, Ball State
University regards the possession of electronic copies of programs like
password crackers on BSU computer systems as a threat to system security. 
Therefore we do not allow them to be stored on our systems.  We do not see this
policy either as a violation of academic freedom or of first amendment rights.  

Personally, I view the distinction between storing and using such a program as
rather like the distinction between possessing and using burglary tools or an
unlicensed concealed weapon.  

Herbert Stahlke
Associate Director
University Computing Services
Ball State University
Muncie, IN  47306
00hfstahlke@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: []  Electronic mail confusion
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:09:10 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 16:27:17 +0100
From: "Stewart T. Fleming" <sfleming@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject:  Electronic mail confusion

I wasn't going to contribute this until I read David Paschich's contribution
(Wed, 16 Sep 1992) concerning potential confusion of users on electronic
networks.

Working within a computer-oriented university department, a lot of internal
work (memos, reminders etc) gets distributed by e-mail.  Such distribution
lists exist for staff, postgraduate students and so on.  This afternoon, a
postgrad. student was surprised to receive complaints from postgraduates at a
neighbouring institution about an e-mail message he had sent for internal
distribution.

What had happened was that an electronic mail address had become truncated and
passed through the smart address matching path.  None of the machines on that
path flagged the address as invalid and the mail was sent on up the chain.
When it reached the other institution, it was distributed to their
postgraduates.

This incident illustrates the potential for embarrassing disclosures,
particularly in view of two results from a recent e-mail survey we carried out:

Q:  Have you sent or received confidential/sensitive information by
    electronic mail ?
    Yes: 75%

Q:  Was the material encrypted or protected in any way ?
    No: 91%

Do you know where your e-mail messages are ?
STF

sfleming@uk.ac.hw.cs or sfleming@cs.hw.ac.uk or ...uknet!cs.hw.ac.uk!sfleming
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2944 comp.org.eff.talk:6108 comp.admin.policy:1122 alt.censorship:7754 soc.college:4051
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:10:04 GMT
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In article <1992Oct1.134706.25819@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>10. (A student:) I compiled an IRC client and master on a computer at U
>Wyoming.  I provided access to this software to other users.  Upon
>receiving complaints, the system administrators removed access for all
>users who had used IRC.  In order to get their accounts back, the

You may think this a violation of academic freedom.  I don't.  If the
situation arose here, I would have no choice but to act quite similarly.

Think about it.  We have students with homework assignments due.  They
risk failing their course if they don't complete them on time.  But
when they try they find that all ports on the terminal server are tied
up by users on IRC.  Now tell me whose rights are being abused.

Now my personal opinion is that students should have complete freedom
to use IRC if they wish.  Students here have that freedom.  All they
need to is purchase time on a public access computer system and pay
their own bills for telephone charges, etc.  If the state legislature
sees fit to increase our funding (fat chance) so that we have resources
to support it, we would even consider allowing them to use our systems.
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3035 comp.org.eff.talk:6236 comp.admin.policy:1191 alt.censorship:7826 soc.college:4117
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 4 Oct 92 00:13:56 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Oct2.170410.12431@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.140955.22663@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>>2) I was not, even implicitly, critizing the schools for banning the
>>running of IRC and Crack. I was, implicitly, critizing the schools for
>>banning the code for IRC and Crack.

>When a given piece of code can be compiled, executed, and deleted in one
>hour (or less, if you've a faster system), how can we effectively control
>the execution of a program WITHOUT controlling the source code?

Kind of tough, I'll agree.  Of course we often agree to give up a
little security to protect a little freedom.  See warrantless
searches, for example.

Also, how the heck can you control source code if people really want
to hide it?  After all, how much time will it add to your hour if the
offender has the source code tared and encrypted?  Or do you also
intend to ban encryption programs?

>If the source code were available in hardcopy only, would you be satisfied?

No.  

>If you were a system admin, how would *you* handle it?

Well, first off, I wouldn't look arround in people's accounts unless
they were readable.

Secondly, if I found a possibly offensive program I would ask the
owner why he had it and inform him that running it, except under
limited and controlled circumstances is prohibited.  I would ask him
to keep me posted on what he did with them and to inform me if he
compiled them for any reason.

Then, depending on the difficulty, I might write a watchdog program or
two to look for the programs being run.

After all, do you really object if someone is fooling arround with
IRC, debugging it and enhancing it as long as a lot of people aren't
using it?  Or if someone is going through the Crack source code to
learn more about security?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
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: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:52:14 GMT

marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes:

[...]
>Really now, do you think that suggesting that
>readers contact their campus newspapers (as suggested by you in a
>subsequent post) is really helpful? Frankly, I  can see the newspapers
>grabbing the "hot" issue that will grab the reader's attention and not
>give the full picture (any guess as to what the issue would be?
>:-)). All we have to do is review the Houston newspaper episode about
>Usenet and other incidents like it to realize that no good came out of
>it.

This is a good point. People should consider this before contacting
their newspapers. However, at many places (Iowa State U., many of the
Canadian schools, Boston U., to name a few) the bans and restrictions
are so entrenched that I don't think a newspaper story is likely to do
any harm and may help by shaking things ups.

[...]
>I feel that your post didn't present the entire picture.
[...]

Another good point. Any one who send a press release to a student
newspaper should have some knowledge of the incident.

- Carl


-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2939 comp.org.eff.talk:6101 comp.admin.policy:1117 alt.censorship:7749 soc.college:4046
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [eff.mail.com-priv]  acceptable use bill passes
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,eff.mail.com-priv
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:12:39 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: eff.mail.com-priv
From: KAHIN@hulaw1.harvard.edu (BRIAN KAHIN)
Subject:  acceptable use bill passes
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:32:00 GMT

Reliable sources tell me that S. 1146 passed the Senate Friday night 
with the same language found in the bills that have passed the house:

                           "....the Foundation is authorized to
foster and support access by the research and education communities to 
computer networks which may be used substantially for purposes in addition
to research and education in the sciences and engineering, if the
additional uses tend to increase the overall capabilities of the networks
to support such research and education activities."


Brian Kahin
Director, Information Infrastructure Project
Science, Technology and Public Policy Program
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
79 John F. Kennedy St.
Cambridge, MA  02138
617-495-8903
Fax: 617-495-5776
kahin@hulaw1.harvard.edu

-- 
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@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.censorship] Censorship at Iowa State
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:19:27 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: twap8@isuvax.iastate.edu (Mike McNarney)
Subject: Censorship at Iowa State
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 06:21:26 GMT

An update on the evolving 'door policy' controversy...
We are now allowed to have our RA write our name, major, and hometown
in blue or black ink on a university-supplied 3x5 white index card.
Apparently, enforcement of violations has been left up to RA (Resident
Assistants)s and to Hall Directors. Many on my floor have made their 
own corrections to the cards (changed majors, nicknames, etc) with
no reprisal.

Late flash: Blue ink has been outlawed. Black ink only now.

---
-Mike McNarney
Iowa State University
twap8@isuvax.bitnet
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3067 comp.admin.policy:1224 alt.censorship:7863
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Let's try a different tack......
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:07:15 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Oct5.153212.9154@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu sez:
>In article <1992Oct5.152257.20361@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>
>>    "The institution has a right, on the other hand, to reasonably
>>    regulate this expression as to time, place, and manner of
>>    expression so as to prevent disruption of the educationally
>>    process or interference with the rights of others, and prevent
>>    placing persons or property in danger."
>>                - constraints.constitutional
>
>This would seem to provide an adequate basis for reasonable restrictions
>on what can be placed in '.plan'.

Wrong on two counts:

1) Time/place/manner restrictions must be content-neutral.

2) It confounds logic to assert that the contents of a .plan file
disrupt the educational process, interfere with anyone's rights, or
imperil persons or property,


-- 
		The sleep of reason begets Limbaughs.

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.censorship,soc.college