HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Cornell changes computer speech policy
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 02:41:54 GMT

>Excerpted from this morning's Cornell Daily Sun:

>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.


The 11/19/92 Cornell staff newspaper sheds some light on this:

"Following national trends, Cornell saw an increase in reported cases of sexual
harassment over the past year that university officials ascribe to increased
awareness due to the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings nationally   and
intensified campus efforts to educate and advise people here about sexual
harassment.

Some new trends also emerged, according to a report issued by the
Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO): increases in reporting from
undergraduates and in anonymous sexual harassment; two cases involving
violence and battering beyond anything reported in previous years; new
avenues of high-tech harassment being utilized; parents of students
becoming more active in initiating reports; and cultural differences
increasing as a contributing factor.
[...]
High-tech harassment increased, with four reports of harassment
via computer in the form of offensive electronic mail messages, screen
savers, computer graphics and sexual sounds being sent to terminals.
[...]
One person was assisted in writing a letter to a harasser, and
one offensive computer screen saver was removed from a network server.
[...]"

============================
Here is the gopher bookmark for the story:

Name=Cornell Chronicle (11/19/92): Sexual harassment reports increased by 55% last year
Type=0
Port=7070
Path=R0-9796-//.files/CH111992/CH11199203
Host=red-dwarf.cit.cornell.edu
-- 
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:4025 ucb.english:87 talk.environment:5748 comp.org.eff.talk:9228
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,ucb.english,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: The Schedule of Classes
Date: 25 Jan 1993 22:42:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.cs.berkeley.edu

kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> 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".

I think the partisans of both sides of this discussion are making too much
of it, and staking out overbroad positions.

For example, I think Carl's view about "public information" is too simple.
If the information in question were the telephone directory, for example,
it's my opinion that the street directory formed by sorting this public
information by address constitutes, in practice, a rather annoying invasion
of privacy.  The situation under discussion is different, but the general
argument that once a piece of information is public then anyone can do
anything with it is simplistic.  Another example: There have been several
cases in which government agencies have successfully been prevented from
gathering information by comparing two databases, each of which was legitimate
in itself, e.g., state payroll vs. welfare rolls in Massachusetts.

In this particular case, the university provided online schedule information
*for the first time* last semester.  They chose to make this available on a
limited basis for the first semester (namely, only at selected locations)
because they wanted the damage to be limited if something went wrong.  This
semester, the second semester in which the information is online at all, it
is universally available over the net, after the success of the trial run.

It could be argued that the university was needlessly timid in waiting one
semester before opening the data to the world.  But I don't think there's
any basis to claim that censorship was at work.

On the other hand, I agree with Carl's earlier post that the university
was disingenuous in claiming that Eric's transgression was about disconnecting
cables when the thing they really minded was the release of the information.
That's a bad precedent.  And I think that in practice, what Eric did was
pretty innocuous, more like a practical joke than like Invasion Of Privacy.
I suppose they were really just angry because he was so snotty about it,
but you're not allowed to say things like that at discipline hearings.

People on both sides should save their indignation for the cases that matter.
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: The Schedule of Classes
Organization: University of Kentucky Engineering Computing Center
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:43:12 GMT

sean@cobra.dra.com wrote:
>In article <C1GtzJ.23I@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>> You can get the UK salary
>> list <we're state employees, after all>, but you have to sign for it 
>> and pay the copying costs.  
>
>Would the University of Kentucky try to prevent me from putting the UK
>salary information up for anonymous FTP after I had obtained it?
>
>Wouldn't that salary information become out of date?  Could I sell
>copies of that salary information to other people?
>
>Just how far is the University of Kentucky willing to go to control
>who sees salary information?  Could a newspaper print it?

Hmmmmm.......I can definitely answer affirmatively here;
the Lexington Herald-Leader publishes the "Top 100 UK
Salaries" on a yearly basis.

Since the UK legal department requires some accountability from the
*original* recipient, I don't know about the anonymous FTP question.  
Of course, someone could just type in the newspaper article......

I should think that UK <or *any* organization, for that matter> would 
object to the distribution of out-of-date information, especially in 
sensitive areas such as salaries.

As far as "preventing" anything or "how far UK is willing to go",
I have no earthly idea; I'm not part of UK Legal, and I've never
read/heard anything about such a case.  I'm not about to attempt
to anticipate the mind of a lawyer.

--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: "chao6@husc11.harvard.edu"@HUSC3.HARVARD.EDU
Subject: Model United Nations Conference in Prague
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:07:07 GMT

Relay-Version: VMS News - V6.0-3 14/03/90 VAX/VMS; site husc3.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news,alt.culture.tuva,alt.education.bangkok
Subject: Model United Nations Conference in Prague
From: chao6@husc11.harvard.edu (James Chao)
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:06:57 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

(If possible, please print out and post for people who might be
interested)

To all those interested in international relations, politics, and the
United Nations -- WorldMUN is a great forum for the discussion of 
current issues being debated by the United Nations today: 

Harvard World Model United Nations (WorldMUN) is an international
conference that brings together university students and young
professionals from around the globe to siimulate the workings of the
United Nations.  The second annual WorldMUN conference will be held from
March 28, 1993, through March 31, 1993, at the Hotel Diplomat in Prague,
The Czech Republic.  

Ten committees, representing the General Assembly, Economic and Social
Council, and Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, will discuss
issues from the actual UN agenda.  In addition to the formal debate of
resolutions, committee sessions will be augmented by presentations from
politicians, businessmen, scholars, and activists who have helped shape
the dramatic world events of recent years.

In this era of momentous political change, WorldMUN seeks to assess the
role of the United Nations in a new world order.  WorldMUN marks the first
truly international simulated United Nations where participants play the
roles of their own nation's ambassadors.  WorldMUN strives to teach
tomorrow's leaders about the United Nations and its methods of conflict
resolution.  It aims to foster skills in negotiation and debate, in order
that delegates may formulate resolutions on topics currently discussed in
the real United Nations.  These resolutions will be sent to the actual
United Nations committees.

WorldMUN 1993 will take place at the Hotel Diplomat in Prague,
The Czech Republic.  The Hotel Diplomat is Prague's most modern conference
center.  Prague is both one of the most beautiful metropoles of Europe and
an ideal location for debating current world politics and the changing
role of the United Nations.

The Hotel diplomat is a luxury resort that offers restaurants, shops, a
night club, and fitness and spa equipment.  Delegates will stay at the
Hotel Diplomat for the reduced rate of 130DM/day double occupancy, which
includes two meals a day.

Delegate registration is $US60 per delegate.  For more information, please
reply to this e-mail address or write/fax:
Joshua A. Salomon, Secretary-General
Harvard World Model United Nations 1993
Suite 23, 1430 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138-3810
UNITED STATES

Telephone:  001-617-493-6995
Fax:  001-617-493-6995

James Chao
chao6@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [aus.aarnet]  apparent censorship of some newgroups
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,aus.aarnet
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:50:41 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: craig@kralizec.zeta.org.au (Craig Dewick)
Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
Subject:  apparent censorship of some newgroups
Date: 23 Jan 1993 16:53:35 +1100


This has probably already been thrashed out, but why is it that certain
newsgroups are being prevented from reaching our shores?

I don't need to mention the groups in question, but they relate to a certain
topic that some bozos seem to regard as taboo, mentally degrading, and as
'polluting' the network.

I have only one comment - this 'Big Brother' attitude of those who have control
of AARnet should not be able to restrict the newsgroups that are available.
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.

The federal goverment already tries to control us enough. Now they're trying to
condition us against reading newsgroups containing articles in socially
sensitive topics. So what? This is supposed to be a democracy we live in.
Perhaps the damn 'thought police' have infiltrated Canberra as well, we might as
well live in a communist country if this sort of net-censoring continues.
-- 
 Craig Dewick, Station Master, Possum Power Tank BBS. +612-544-1060 (ringback).
    Send electronic mail to craig@kralizec.zeta.org.au, flames to /dev/null.
                      - Railway Preservation Industries -
          Supporting the Preservation of Australia's Railway Heritage
-- 
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 21:54:37 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: zyin@soda.berkeley.edu (Zheng Yin)
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 06:15:01 GMT

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.
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: K-12 schools and Usenet feeds
Date: 22 Jan 1993 18:01:02 GMT
Organization: Fachschaft math/inf, Uni Karlsruhe, FRG
NNTP-Posting-Host: irau28.ira.uka.de

In article <C17zLn.n0o@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:

> So, let's say that I want to set up a Usenet site for, oh, 200 people.
> Are you suggesting that I have to poll all 200 users to reach some form
> of consensus?  

To reach consensus it is (IMHO) sufficient to let elected
representatives make the decision. That is OK because it follows
democratic principles. I know of a case (University of Oldenburg,
Germany) where the elected student representatives agreed upon a
certain cut of the newsfeed, after the issue had been discussed among
all people who had shown interest. There is nothing wrong with it, I
think, you don't need 100% consensus for a democratically justified
decision. 

> This discussion is rapidly reaching the "full feed or nothing" approach
> to Usenet. 

Not from my side, see below.

> 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...

> while I don't find a 'custom filtered' feed desirable,
> I realize that it is (and, in many cases, should be) acceptable.
> 
> We should stop trying to deal in absolutes; it doesn't work.

This is true. But my contributions to the discussions deal with
principles (not absolutes) that I think are important to follow even
it is not possible to implement them 100%. But it is important to
regard them, though. I'm not that unrealistic, but this doesn't stop
me from stating what I think to be right or wrong.

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
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:4046 ucb.english:102 talk.environment:5790 comp.org.eff.talk:9310
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: 27 Jan 93 03:15:18 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <JMC.93Jan25201400@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>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".

	However, if you remember, the Supreme Court ruled that "compilations
of fact", eg the White pages, are not copyrightable.

	Anway, you will still need to go through legal moves to stop it, and
if the information gets into one of the major consumer information
databases, getting it removed would be a real hastle.
-- 
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
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: [ucb.org.csua, et al.]  Re: The Schedule of Classes
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:00:21 GMT

In article <JMC.93Jan25201400@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>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".

According to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Feist case, the information in
a phone book is not copyrightable--only its particular arrangement is.


--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 
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,ucb.english,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: K-12 schools and Usenet feeds
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:00:58 GMT
Organization: University of Kentucky Engineering Computing Center

s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) wrote:
>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 whose users have *agreed* to not carry certain material

So, let's say that I want to set up a Usenet site for, oh, 200 people.
Are you suggesting that I have to poll all 200 users to reach some form
of consensus?  

Let's see.....in a secondary school of 500 people, let's suppose that
I can actually get 30 of them to participate in a discussion about
Usenet.  Of course, I'll have to explain Usenet to them, and they can't
really make an intelligent decision until they've experimented with it,
so.........how, exactly, do we achieve this wonderful consensus?  If I
were to select those students who, in my opinion, could make a rational
decision, I'd be accused of stacking the deck.  On the other hand, picking
students at random could result in getting students who can't even under-
stand a newspaper, much less networking and Usenet.  You're heading into
a no-win situation.  As long as one student doesn't get what they want,
you'll have problems.  [ These comments come after *years* of working with
grade- and high-school groups.  You can make this scenario work, but you'll
never please everyone. ]

This discussion is rapidly reaching the "full feed or nothing" approach
to Usenet.  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; while I don't find a 'custom filtered' feed desirable,
I realize that it is (and, in many cases, should be) acceptable.

We should stop trying to deal in absolutes; it doesn't work.

--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
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:4055 talk.environment:5806 comp.org.eff.talk:9361
From: sb380@city.ac.uk (HOLT A D)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: The Schedule of Classes
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:13:49 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: The City University

sean@cobra.dra.com writes:

>What's the difference between printing material that may become out-of-date
>in a newspaper, and making the material available for anonymous FTP?

A newspaper is recognised* as having information of current time ("news")
value only that may become rapidly dated, also the average newspaper reader
has a fair idea (usually slightly exaggerated) of the likelihood of the
information in the newspaper being correct [using British examples, the
Times has a higher reputation for accuracy than the Sunday Sport].
Too many people, however, think "if it is on a computer it must be right"
and take no notice of when the file was created (and may not be able to
find this out anyhow)

* by "the man in the street"
>Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
>Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100


Andy Holt // Computer Unit // City University // London EC1V 0HB
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:4036 talk.environment:5773 comp.org.eff.talk:9265 ucb.english:95
From: sean@cobra.dra.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,talk.environment,comp.org.eff.talk,ucb.org.csua,ucb.org.ocf,ucb.english
Subject: Re: The Schedule of Classes
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:35:05 CST
Distribution: inet
Organization: Data Research Associates, Inc.

In article <C1GtzJ.23I@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> Hogwash, horse hooey, and balderdash.  *Tons* of public information is
> routinely controlled by administrations.  You can get the UK salary
> list <we're state employees, after all>, but you have to sign for it 
> and pay the copying costs.  In some states, you can't get a state employee's

Would the University of Kentucky try to prevent me from putting the UK
salary information up for anonymous FTP after I had obtained it?

Wouldn't that salary information become out of date?  Could I sell
copies of that salary information to other people?

Just how far is the University of Kentucky willing to go to control
who sees salary information?  Could a newspaper print it?

-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
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 17:47:52 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
From: peter@cujo.curtin.edu.au (Peter N Lewis)
Subject:  Re: Censorchip on AARNET
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 01:04:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.084614.11293@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au>,
tcl@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Charles Layton ) wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Bingo, no more Censorchip.

You missed by far the most important - a commitmant by the AARNet
administration that a site that imports these groups via another link will
be allowed to redistribute the groups on to AARNet.  Last I heard on the
subject was that any site that did this could face having their link to
AARNet removed (I don't know how that fits with Pyramid importing and
distributing the alt.drugs group).

Peter or Geoff, care to comment on the AARNet-legality of the scheme?
   Peter.

_______________________________________________________________________
Peter N Lewis <peter@cujo.curtin.edu.au>             Ph: +61 9 368 2055
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk