HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (Eric Scheirer)
Subject: Cornell changes computer speech policy
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:14:08 GMT


Excerpted from this morning's Cornell Daily Sun:

In light of last semester's child pornography incident at Clara Dickson Hall
and the increasing appearance of sexist, racist, and ant-Semitic messages in
electronic mail around the country, M. Stuart Lynn, vice president for 
information technologies, presented the University's new policy on electronic
communications to the University Assembly last night.

"This is a difficult issue because it deals both with the freedom of speech
and the right of people not to be harassed," said Lynn of the policy, which 
includes a set of guidelines governing conditions under which the university
can restrict access to its computer networks.

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."  Lynn said that access to computer
networks would be temporarily closed, only in the case of files containing
obscene or offensive material, such as sexually explicit screen savers and
an anti-Semitic role-playing game.  If the injunction is reversed by campus
judiciary procedures, he added, the files would be reopened immediately.

Although the code aims to protect the civil rights of members of the Cornell
community, serveral Assembly members expressed reservations about the policy.
The proposal calls for value judgements on the part of information technologies
officials.

"We're living in a faster age and we need to act fast, but any mechanism 
such as this one, needs constant review and re-evaluation," said Ray Oglesby,
natural resources.  "Is the person making the decision qualified?  We need
to determine that on a case-by-case basis."

Henry DeVries, computer specialist for cooperative education, suggested
implementation of a training program for system administrators which would
teach them the specifics of obscenity codes and laws.

"What we want to avoid is trigger-happy assistant administrators," he said.  
"We want them to be prepared to make a quick, accurate decision so that 
everybody's rights are preserved."

Lynn attempted to quell the Assembly's doubts.  "We at Cornell do not want
to limit anyone's freedom of speech, but we are a community and we must protect
our members," he said.

"We do recognize that we can't always decide what is appropriate or inapp-
ropriate, but where time is of the essense and more harm is done by allowing
the file to remain, we must act," Lynn added.

----
Eric Scheirer - Sun Undergrad Lab Consultant - escheire@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu

Any opinions expressed above are mine alone, and are not intended to 
represent views of the Cornell CS Dept, or Cornell Information Technologies --
I don't even work for CIT!


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: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:47:26 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: mark@coombs.anu.edu.au (Mark)
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
Subject:  Re: Censorchip on AARNET
Date: 20 Jan 93 23:14:59 GMT

tcl@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Charles Layton ) writes:
>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?

>It seems to me that the best way to solve the recurrent requests for
>various banned newsgroups is to for some site to import them independant
>of the current link.  If the GIF groups were not included this could
>be done for a relatively small cost.  All that is needed is
>	(1) a site to do it
>	(2) a small contribution from everyone who has expressed a desire
>		for one of these groups
>	(3) organisation - probably the hardest bit.

Slight problem in that they arent allowed to be carried on internal AARNET
links either. 

Mark
mark@coombs.anu.edu.au
-- 
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:4026 ucb.english:88 talk.environment:5750 comp.org.eff.talk:9232
From: nweaver@soda.berkeley.edu (Nicholas C. Weaver)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,ucb.english,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: [ucb.org.csua, et al.]  Re: The Schedule of Classes
Date: 26 Jan 1993 00:56:17 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <C1F4Bs.Hxp@ms.uky.edu} morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
}}From: hh@soda.berkeley.edu (Eric Hollander)
}
}}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.....

	The biggest problem with large electronic phonebooks is they are too
damn convenient.  In printed form, they work fine for the general consumer.
He/she can look up what he/she wants.  But electronic form, especially a
free electronic form, is an invitation to abuse by mass mailers etc.
Currently, electronic forms cost a fortune, because there is a significant
intrinsic value in a large database of names, especially when corolated with
other information.  

	The sale of such information normally pisses me off, but I accept it
because it will go on.  However, if an electronic phone directory is set up,
without severe limits on # of acess, it is an invitation to mass marketing.
And if someone who markets didn't find out about it, some student, (me
included) woudl be sorely tempted to sell that information.  A Yellow pages,
or business directory, isn't as big a problem, because the information is
less valuable for marketing purposes, but the 1992-93 student directory, in
electronic form?  After all, how much did ABC pay the unversity last year
for the mailing list names it used?  Wasn't it like $.15 a name?  

	Just consiter for a moment, what would happen if that data was just
given away in electronic form, especially since it already is sorted into a
major catigory, Students of the University of California at Berkeley.
-- 
Nicholas C. Weaver                                nweaver@soda.berkeley.edu
It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, .signifying nothing.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,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 21:14:27 GMT

morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:

[...]
>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......
[...]

I haven't formed an opinion on the usefulness of nonupdated on-line
class schedules. But suppose I thought they were harmful; would I then
support attempts to keep the information out of Eric's hands? No. The
most I would do would be to try to persuade Eric of the error of his
ways. If that didn't work, I'd post my own warnings and perhaps
criticize Eric for publishing irresponsibility. In other words, I'd
fight Eric's speech with more speech, not with suppression.

[...]
>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?  
[...]

Suppose, the Registrar's office calls Eric and says "Eric, we wish you
would stop criticizing us on the Net". If Eric ignores their wishes
and continues to post, would you have him up on charges for violating
"the spirit of the Registrar's wishes ... if not their explicit
words"?

Suppose, the Registrar's office calls Eric and says "Eric, we order
you would stop criticizing us on the Net". If Eric ignores their
wishes and continues to post, would you have him up on charges for
violating an order from the University?

- 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:4048 talk.environment:5793 comp.org.eff.talk:9312
From: hh@soda.berkeley.edu (Eric Hollander)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: The Schedule of Classes
Date: 27 Jan 93 08:06:21 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1k43ku$o9a@agate.berkeley.edu> jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>PLEASE check your Newsgroups: line.  I seriously doubt if ucb.english
>(the English dept at UCB) is relevant at all, and I also doubt if the
>other ucb groups are relevant.  And WHY is this on talk.environment?
>Gag me with a crosspost!

Some people are mistakenly assuming that what I did was motivated solely by
freedom of information concerns.  This is not the case.

Distribution of information on paper is wasteful and environmentally
unsound.  I did not want to contribute to this waste of resources, and I
wanted to make it easier for other people to also not waste resources.

I posted to talk.environment in hopes that people might start thinking of
computer networks as a more environementally-sound alternative to our
current system of information distribution.

e
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: K-12 schools and Usenet feeds
Organization: University of Kentucky Engineering Computing Center
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:55:31 GMT

s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) wrote:
>> That approach doesn't work, and any decision on newsgroup
>> selection will be unpopular, especially when the most popular groups are
>> among the most controversial.  With K-12 students, the problems are mag-
>> nified greatly;
>
>...but only by stupid laws and parents "concerned" about the wrong
>issues, not by some fundamental principles...
>

OK, how's this for a "fundamental" principle?

	K-12 students are *NOT* the "typical" Usenet audience.  

Since many (if not most) Usenet participants are professionals and
college/university students, it is reasonable to expect that they are 
better-educated and more socially experienced than many (if not most)
K-12 students?  Do you really expect the average 6th grader to be capable
of informed decision about, say, alt.sex.pictures or soc.motss?

We don't show 4th graders the gas chambers of the Holocaust, we don't
read Xaviera Hollander in 6th grade, and we don't talk about masturba-
tion in grade school; why, then, should we dump all of these topics
in their laps as Usenet?

Who are we to make assumptions about their level of maturity?  If the
school, acting <presumably> on behalf of the parents, decides that they
don't want to discuss <or provide material on> a certain topic to K-12
students, who are we to presume impropriety?

I've said it before, but here we go again:

	Decisions such as this, affecting K-8 students, are best left
	in the hands of the parents. 

I'd prefer that the school stay out of it one way or the other.  Since
the school can't control the distribution of online materials on site
<as discussed in earlier postings>, the logical step is to prevent their 
entrance to the site.  We may not agree with it, but it's acceptable in
this situation.

--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
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: [ucb.org.csua, et al.]  Re: The Schedule of Classes
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1k227h$dsb@agate.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: inet
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:14:00

If the phone book database is copyrighted, the owner can go after whoever
uses it without permission except for what is legally "fair use".  Using
it for a mass mailing would not count as "fair use".

Sysadmins often suffer from pomposity, as seems to be the case here.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

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 21:54:59 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 =
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
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:43:46 GMT

tom@soda.berkeley.edu (Tom Holub) writes:

[...]
>I would agree, though, that it's also inexcusable to circumvent normal
>channels to impose your view of what is 'right' on an administration
>of people who are paid to make these decisions.
[...]

I don't believe this is correct. The administration is not paid to
decide how and if individuals will publish public information. When it
makes such decisions, it exceeds and abuses its authority. The victim
of such an abuse is under no moral obligation to submit while the
matter is decided via "normal channels".

- 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,ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,ucb.english,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: The Schedule of Classes
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:02:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.184233.6732@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>In a passing remark, Carl Kadie said:
>
>"The Supreme Court recently affirmed that noncreative collections of
>facts (e.g. the white pages of the phone book) are not copyrightable."
>
>Does this mean that Compuserve's assertion of a "compilation copyright" on
>the messages in its forums is now invalid, or does that still stand on
>other grounds than "collection of facts"?

CompuServe's "compilation copyright" is not invalidated by the Feist case.
The copyrights of individual postings remain in the hands of the authors,
but the copyright of the compilation is CompuServe's.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:4047 ucb.english:103 talk.environment:5792 comp.org.eff.talk:9311
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: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:25:52 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
Subject:  Re: Censorchip on AARNET
Date: 22 Jan 93 13:14:24 GMT

In article <mark.727571699@coombs>, mark@coombs.anu.edu.au (Mark) writes:
> tcl@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Charles Layton ) writes:
>>carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
...
> Slight problem in that they arent allowed to be carried on internal AARNET
> links either. 
> 

Oh? why pray tell. It will not affect the US-AU link, Which as we all know so
well is the REAL reason they arn't imported. :-)

~Paul
-- 
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:4039 comp.org.eff.talk:9281
From: sean@cobra.dra.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: The Schedule of Classes
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:28:44 CST
Organization: Data Research Associates, Inc.

In article <C1H9DE.Kvr@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> 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.

Why should the Registrar be able to exert more control over access to the
electronic version of the class schedule than the old paper form of
the schedule?  Or more generally, why should any government entity be able
to assert more control over the electronic form of the information than
other forms such as paper?

Prior to INFOCAL did the Berkeley registrar use to refuse to give out paper
copies of the class schedule because it might have gotten out-of-date?  Did
the university discipline a student for making "unauthorized" use of a
university copier machine for making copies of the paper class schedule?  What
if that university copier was one used by the public to copy a wide variety
of material?  (I haven't actually seen an INFOCAL terminal, so I don't know
whether to consider more like a copier inside a university office, or one
of the public copiers around campus).

Eric's release of an electronic version of the class schedule is not a
punishable offense (and isn't what the university reprimanded him for).
Whether the punishment actually fits the crime, or is it an excuse to
punish him for making the registrar mad depends?  For example, does
Berkeley have a consistently applied policy of reprimanding students
for unplugging university equipment?  For example, in their computer
labs do they issue letters of reprimand to students for unplugging a
printer from one of the computers, and plugging it into a different
computer?

-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:4031 comp.admin.policy:1735
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: K-12 and us
From: ribarbe@eis.calstate.edu (Richard Eldon Barber)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:19:38 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

> put the blame on the whole press for not giving
> your daughter proper education.
> 
> > rather her learn about it at church (which isn't going to
> > happen).  The schools have been burdened with becoming the
> > parents to our children, but if they are to learn about sex
> 
> The church has failed to replace the parents in educating their
> children, (at least in this particular point), and the schools will
> fail too in replacing the parents completely...

lindstrom says "which isn't going to happen"
 isn't that you curtailing her future experiences?

s_titz says that the "church has failed to replace the parent in educating
their children, (at least in this particular point)
 I think it's the other way around, public schooling (gov't) has failed
while the Church has instituted sexuality education in all of it's
parochial schools.  Human sexuality is a central issue in the Church, so
why _shouldn't_ the Church educate on it?

 From _Humanae_Vitae_, encyclical letter of His Holiness Pope Paul VI,
"Everything in the modern media of social communications which leads to
sense excitation and unbridled customs, as well as every form of
pornography and licentious performances, must arouse the frank and
unanimous reaction of all those who are solicitous for the progress of
civilization and the defense of the supreme good of the human spirit.
Vainly would one seek to justify such deprivation with the pretext of
artistic or scientific exigencies, ***or to deduce an argument from the
freedom allowed in this sector by the public athorities.***"

---Rick Barber, <ribarbe@eis.calstate.edu>

Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,ucb.english,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk