From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.33 (Digest)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:55:14 GMT

Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 02, No. 33


----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.33

[Best of June, 1992

========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the articles,
or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my
opinion. The selection and paraphrases are based on earlier abstracts
by Elizabeth, Paul, Mark, and guest editor Lorrie Ackerman.
===============================================================

  [We need new guest (or regular) editors, for information send
   email to kadie@eff.org.  - Carl]

Notes 1-4 are about new computer polices covering everything from
email privacy to the content of newsgroups.

1. This is the text of the "interim e-mail advisory" from University
   of Illinois, effectively a new computer privacy policy.  "Over the
   past year, the campus administration has received a number of
   inquiries about access to files maintained on electronic media.
   Essentially, the questions focused on the privacy of such
   communications and the conditions under which someone may look at
   another person's files."
    <1992Jun2.011050.15719@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

2. "I have extensively revised and expanded many of the computing
   policies that apply to the largest educational network at Rice,
   Owlnet."  Includes notes on Rice's University Computing Policy,
   Owlnet Policies, Owlnet Policies Enforcement Guidelines, Owlnet
   Student Advisory Committee Charter, System Administrator Statement
   of Ethics, and Owlnet Application Agreement.  Also includes access
   information for these documents.
    <1992Jun27.181753.21585@eff.org>

3. (A system administrator:) The list of newsgroups we cannot carry
   includes alt.sex*, alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and
   rec.arts.erotica.
    <1992Jun08.165434.4998@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>

4. As reported in the University of Toronto _Bulletin_, that
   university is not planning to intercept or censor any of the files
   available on the Internet that may contain violent pornographic
   material.
    <1992Jun16.045026.15800@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>

Notes 5 and 6 are about the law.

5. "A federal judge declared unconstitutional Tuesday the decency
   clause the National Endowment for the Arts used in determining who
   receives grant money, saying it was too vague and overbroad in
   restricting artists' freedom of speech."
    <1992Jun10.040756.10831@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

6. "All but one of the six leading candidates for California's 14th
   Congressional District have formally committed to protect
   traditional constitutional liberties against technological
   threats." Several have signed a formal statement to this effect
   (names and copy of statement included). This may "be the first time
   that major-party congressional candidates have ever committed to
   explicit action to protect technology-related civil liberties."
    <fwd.9206080338.AA02150@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> 

Notes 7-10 are about offensive, harassing, and anonymous computer
communications.

7. The "Standard Manager's Reply" (Revision A), to be sent to users
   complaining about the content of the e-mail or newsgroup posting of
   a subscriber to the manager's system, espouses the delights of
   freedom of expression, clear thinking, and kill files.
    <6980@public.BTR.COM>

8. Comments on and criticisms of the "Standard Manager's Reply".
    <!d@byu.edu>

9. Harassment is intentional, unwanted person-to-person communication
   by any channel.  Explicitly tell the harasser to stop communicating
   with you.  Save copies of all communications.  If the harassment
   continues, contact a system administrator, university official or
   the courts.
    <1992Jun11.180712.21660@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

10. Many students are afraid to ask questions for fear of looking
   foolish, either in the eyes of their peers or their instructors.
   Some means of posting anonymously is a good thing, but completely
   anonymous accounts are not. Anonymous mail is hard to reply to, but
   anonymous postings to a news group can work. With Plato/NOVANET,
   the University of Illinois has had long experience with large scale
   newsgroups, and has sound policies on anonymity that we could learn
   from.
    <12951@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>

- Carl]


In this issue:

Carl M. Kadie    89  New U. of Illinois (and NCSA) Computer Privacy policy
Carl M. Kadie   203  Rice U. - Overview
                 36  >Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
pkern            87  U of Toronto reaction
Carl M. Kadie    66  [UPI] Federal judge rules<>ecency clause unconstitutional
Jim Warren      204  File 3--Major Congression<>ommit to Elec. Civil Liberties
                 38  Standard Mngr's Reply Rev. A
Jamie Gritton    48  >standard managers reply
Carl M. Kadie    70  >vax harrassment
Douglas W Jones  57  Anonymous postings (was: [] More S/H)


Computers and Academic Freedom News

Managing Editor:  Carl M. Kadie (kadie@eff.org)
Administration:   William W. Arnold (caf-talk-request@eff.org, warnold@eff.org)
Associate Editor: Elizabeth M. Reid (emr@eff.org)
Associate Editor: Paul Joslin (joslin@tso.uc.edu)
Associate Editor: Adam C. Gross (ag3j+@andrew.cmu.edu)
Associate Editor: Mark C. Sheehan (sheehan@unixpop.ucs.indiana.edu)

To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-talk@eff.org". Your note
will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup.

Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org. The
directory is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file
pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email.
For information, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:

send acad-freedom README

Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan, or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an
editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or
her own.

The addresses for the list are:
	comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org     - for contributions to the list
		or	caf-talk@eff.org
	listserv@eff.org    - for automated additions/deletions
                (send email with the line "help" for details.)
	caf-talk-request@eff.org    - for administrivia

        Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
        and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
------------            

------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Jun  1 21:24:05 1992
Newsgroups: uiuc.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 1--New U. of Illinois (and NCSA) Computer Privacy policy
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 01:10:50 GMT

[This is a repost of the article by Allan Levy entitled "Interim
E-Mail Advisory". The original article didn't not get propagated off
of ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (because distribution was set to "local"). I've
reformated it a bit. - Carl]

===== In article <1992May19.154352.3556@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, a-levy@uiuc.edu
     (Allan H. Levy) writes ===============
 
The following notice was sent to the Deans, Directors and Department
Heads at the Urbana Campus.

It is reproduced in its entirety.
******************

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
 
Office of the Vice Chancellor for Administrative Affairs
 
Swanlund Administration Building	217 333-6536
601 East John Street	217 333-2920
Champaign
Illinois 61820
 
TO:  Deans, Directors, and Department Heads
DATE:   April 27, 1992
 
 
FROM: Judith S. Liebman 
Vice Chancellor for Resarch and
Dean of the Graduate College
 
Donald F. Wendel
Vice Chancellor for Administrative Affairs
 
RE:	Electronic Mail Advisory
 
Over the past year, the campus administration has received a number of
inquiries about access to files maintained on electronic media.
Essentially, the questions focused on the privacy of such
communications and the conditions under which someone may look at
another person's files.  We asked the Advisory Committee on Networking
and Computing to study this issue and to develop a policy statement
that would guide campus actions.  The attached statement is the result
of the Committee's efforts.  We are issuing the statement as an
interim policy in order to allow faculty, staff, and students to
"live" with the statement for a few months before it is made final.
We would be pleased to receive comments on the interim policy
statement.


INTERIM E-MAIL ADVISORY

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign participates in a range
of computing networks and many members of the community also regularly
use computers in their work. Statements in public files in this medium
are protected by the same laws and policies, and are subject to the
same limitations, as communications in other media. The same holds
true for electronic personal files and communications.

However, users should exercise caution when committing confidential
information to electronic media, because the confidentiality of such
material cannot be guaranteed. For example, routine maintenance or
system administration of a computer may result in the contents of
files and communications being seen.

Also, under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, electronic files
are treated in the same way as paper files. The documents in the files
of employees of the State of Illinois are considered to be public
documents, and may be subject to inspection through FOIA. In such
cases, the campus Freedom of Information Officer must inspect files to
determine which portions may be exempt from disclosure.

Network and system administrators are expected to treat the contents
of electronic files as private and confidential. Any inspection of
electronic files, and any action based upon such inspection, will be
governed by all applicable U. S. and Illinois laws and by University
policies.

A network or system administrator who is unsure about how to deal with
questions about the content of computer files or access to such files
should contact George F. Badger, Associate Vice Chancellor for
Computing and Communications, at 333-4103 (e-mail: g-badger@uiuc.edu).

	04/27/92
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Jun 27 14:18:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.policy.admin
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 2--Rice U. - Overview
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1992 18:17:53 GMT

Joseph A. Watters, the Deputy Director of Owlnet at Rice University,
has sent me updated versions of Owlnet's computer policies.
Interesting features include a Sys Admin Statement of Ethics and
student committee that advises on policy and handles some of the
discipline.

I'm enclosing Mr. Watters overview letter (with his permission) and
access information for this and related. To faciliate discussion, I'll
post the documents as separate articles.

================================
>From jaw@rice.edu Sat Jun 27 12:47:27 1992
>From: Joseph A. Watters <jaw@rice.edu>
>Subject: Updated Rice University computing policies
>To: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu
>Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 16:56:37 CDT
>Cc: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

Mr. Kadie,

As you maintain and critique University computing policies, I thought
it appropriate to send you updated editions of many of Rice
University's computing polices.  I have extensively revised and
expanded many of the computing policies that apply to the largest
educational network at Rice, Owlnet.  The new policies and other
documents are included in 6 messages that follow this one.  Please feel
free to critique these, and post them to an appropriate newsgroup
(comp.admin.policy?) for further public comment.  You may also archive
and post all or parts of this message as explanatory comment to the
archive material. The mail messages contain:

Rice's University Computing Policy - You should already have this in
the archive.  It hasn't changed, but I'm sending it along as part of
the set.  Of significant note is the section requiring permission of
the Vice President for Information Systems for a student to send
communications off-campus and to access external computing facilities.
Last semester, Owlnet obtained blanket permission for student users to
access external computing facilities for educational purposes.  All
Owlnet student users (1500 students) automatically receive permission
as part of their account acquisition.  Existing users were given
permission also.  Owlnet essentially found a way to give the students
what they wanted, access to off-campus facilities, including e-mail and
news posting, without requiring the University to go through the
relatively arduous process of changing a University wide policy.


Owlnet Policies - These are the policies that I have the most direct
control and influence over.  They have been extensively revised based
upon comments from students at Rice and comments from people such as
yourself.

Owlnet Policy Enforcement Guidelines - This document has been
extensively rewritten since the last one in the archives.  The major
change is a rewriting to incorporate the disciplinary function of the
Owlnet Student Advisory Committee, a new student body whose charter is
included in one of the messages.

Owlnet Student Advisory Committee Charter - This charter establishes a
student computer user committee with two main functions:  proposing
and reviewing Owlnet computing policies with the purpose of having a
formal mechanism for including student input into policy formulation;
and acting as a disciplinary body for users accused of violating
Owlnet computing policies.  The charter was originally written by a
student.  I then formed a working group of myself, a system
administrator and four students (the proposal author was one of them)
to work out some specific issues with the charter.  The result of that
working group is what you see.  The charter has essentially been
adopted by the faculty committee that sets policy direction for
Owlnet, and we anticipate forming the first committee this fall.

System Administrator Statement of Ethics -  This statement was
recently adopted by the system administrators in Rice's Information
Systems division (these sys admins provide services to Owlnet).  It
is a statement of how they will approach user privacy and
confidentiality.

Owlnet Application Agreement - This is the agreement that all new
users sign.  I believe this one is a later version than the one in
your archives.

-- 
Joseph A. Watters, Jr.		jaw@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet		director@owlnet.rice.edu
Rice University
Houston, Texas

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

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
policies/rice.edu
=================
Computer policies for Rice University, especially Owlnet. (Rice is a
private University in Houston, Texas.) The charter for the Owlnet
Student Advisory Committe Charter is included. The two main functions
of the committee are "proposing and reviewing Owlnet computing
policies with the purpose of having a formal mechanism for including
student input into policy formulation; and acting as a disciplinary
body for users accused of violating Owlnet computing policies."

=================
policies/old.rice.edu
=================
Old computer policies ("User Agreement","Disciplinary Procedures",
"Appropriate Use") for Rice University (especially Owlnet). Rice is a
private University in Houston, Texas. These policies are under
development and subject to change. The "Disciplinary Procedures" is
interesting because it establishes a due process procedure just for
computer infractions.
(Critiqued, replaced by newer policies)



=================
policies/old.rice.edu.critique
=================
Critiques of the old computer policies at Rice University (especially
Owlnet). Updated policies are now in force.

Summaries: One critic calls the policy "uptight and authoritarian",
saying: "Requir[ing] permission ahead of time to send email or use ftp
offsite? Lock accounts with no warning? My God, why not just shoot
them in the head? It'd be kinder." The Director replies that
permission is readily given.

Another critic says that parts are too vague and that privacy
provisions may be inconsistent with general University policy,

Yet another critic says "This is the most dangerous sort of policy, if
what you say is true-- a policy which is routinely violated, but which
is enforcible against 'troublemakers'-- whereas an oppressive policy
strictly enforced will be challenged and revoked, this policy can stay
on the books forever, becoming a weapon for administrators to use on
any students who annoy them."

=================
policies/README
=================
Computer Policy and Critiques Archive
  [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
     [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]

This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools and
networks. The collection also includes critiques of some of the
policies.

The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/policies".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:

send acad-freedom/policies <filenames>

where <filenames> is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.

For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (kadie@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).

=================
caf
=================
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?

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

These document(s) are 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/policies/rice.edu
  pub/academic/policies/old.rice.edu
  pub/academic/policies/old.rice.edu.critique
  pub/academic/policies/README
  pub/academic/caf

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/policies rice.edu
send acad-freedom/policies old.rice.edu
send acad-freedom/policies old.rice.edu.critique
send acad-freedom/policies README
send acad-freedom caf
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Jun  8 14:30:23 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Article 3--Re: Anonymous Contact Service @ wizvax
Date: 8 Jun 92 16:54:34 GMT

This is a *little* old now, but you get the idea ...

-------------------From ukc --------------------------------------
 
 Here is an up to date list of the newsgroups that we cannot carry:
 
        alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
        alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless
        alt.drugs
        alt.evil
        alt.personals
        alt.personals.bondage
        alt.personals.misc
        alt.psychoactives
        alt.sex
        alt.sex.bestiality
        alt.sex.bondage
        alt.sex.masturbation
        alt.sex.motss
        alt.sex.movies
        alt.sex.pictures.female
        alt.sex.pictures.male
        alt.tasteless
        rec.arts.erotica
 
 Ian.
 --
 Ian Harding
 UKnet Backbone
+++


Simple.    J.


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Jun 16 11:08:29 1992
From: pkern@utcs.utoronto.ca (pkern)
Subject: Article 4--U of Toronto reaction
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 04:50:26 GMT


_The Bulletin_
University of Toronto
June 8, 1992

page 1.


Network Pornography Elicits Little Reaction at U of T

By Karina Dahlin

   U of T is not planning to intercept or censor the international
computer network, Internet, that carries among its thousands of files
a couple that contain violent pornographic material.
   Material of this nature has been available for a long time and
University of Toronto Computing Services has not received any
complaints about it, said associate director Eugene Siciunas.
   Last month the University of Manitoba cut off access to a file
called "sex-bondage."  Terry Falconer, vice-president (administration),
said in an interview that complaints about the material were made to
the news media and recounted to him.  The Winnipeg police department
told Canadian Press that anyone distributing material that depicts
violence against women and children may be prosecuted.  Although the
police paid a visit to the university, Falconer does not expect them
to take any action.
   Falconer has not received any direct complaints about his action
but has heard it is being compared to censorship.  That is not the
way he sees it.  "We don't make such material available in the
bookstore or the library either."  If anyone wishes to study the
restricted file, the university will provide access to it, he said.
   Like a bookstore, Internet offers a multitude of reading material
arranged in categories such as science, sociology and miscellaneous.
The file banned in Winnipeg and one listed as "sex-bestiality" are
available under the heading "alternatives."  To open any of the files
people must push certain keys on their keyboard.
   If the material were to be intercepted at U of T, it would
probably be on the order of David Sadleir, vice-president (computing
and communications).  Such action seems unlikely.  "I am not a
censor," said Sadleir in an interview.  Not knowing the details about
the case at the University of Manitoba, he did not wish to pass
judgement on it.
  Sadleir's view is that if a recipient has to actively select
information, there is no need for U of T to take action.  If, on the
other hand, the messages are flashed across the screen without user
consent, his response would be "very aggressive" regardless of the
content.  Such practice could be described as invasion of people's
privacy, he said.
   A couple of months ago, U of T was asked by other Canadian
universities to help trace the source of some pornographic computer
material, Sadleir said.  The site was identified as a large US
university.  While it is possible to block access to an institution
that transmits offensive material, this would also restrict access to
useful information, he added.
   What constitutes proper use of computer networks is the source of
much debate.  Although the topic is mentioned in various codes of
conduct and user policies at the University, no one has yet
formulated a policy that addresses all concerns.  "I'm looking forward
to someone coming up with the definitive statement but I haven't seen
one yet," Sadleir said.  "It's a complex reality, one that's going to
plague us for a while."
   ONet, one of the thousands of networks that form and carry
Internet, should not be blamed for the contents of the messages that
individual users post, says John Drake, assistant vice-president
(computing and information services) at McMaster University and chair
of the management board of ONet.  The Ontario-wide research and
education network is a carrier, not a provider or publisher of
information and its managers should not decide which material is
proper to transmit, Drake said in an interview.
  ONet is an association, not a government-regulated carrier as is
Bell Canada.  But like a phone company it provides a service with the
view that "what you do with the phone is up to you," said Drake.

			===== =====
[ page 2: from the mast-head ]

The Bulletin
Published every two weeks by the Department of Public Affairs,
21 King's College Circle, 2nd floor,
University of Toronto, Toronto, M5S 1A1.

Material may be reprinted in whole or in part with appropriate
credit to _The Bulletin_.
			===== =====


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Jun 10 00:17:10 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 5--[UPI] Federal judge rules NEA decency clause unconstitutional
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 04:07:56 GMT

Copyright 1992 by UPI.  Reposted with permission from the ClariNet
Electronic Newspaper newsgroup clari.news.law.crime,
clari.news.gov.usa, & clari.news.issues.  For more info on ClariNet,
write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.

	LOS ANGELES (UPI) -- A federal judge declared unconstitutional Tuesday
the decency clause the National Endowment for the Arts used in
determining who receives grant money, saying it was too vague and
overbroad in restricting artists' freedom of speech.
	In a 44-page ruling, U.S. District Judge A. Wallace Tashima found
that ``artistic expression, no less than academic speech or journalism
is at the core of a democratic society's cultural and political
vitality.''
	The court also ruled that four artists will be entitled to grants
denied by ex-NEA Chairman John Frohnmayer if they can prove at trial
that the NEA denied the grants for political rather than aesthetic
reasons.
	Congress adopted the decency provision in November 1990. The Bush
administration argued it should be upheld because the NEA had limited
funds and should be able to have a procedure by which the money is
distributed.
	The provision required the NEA chairperson to ensure that ``artistic
excellence and artistic merit are the criteria by which applications are
judged, taking into consideration general standards of decency and
respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.''
	The artists, Karen Finley, John Fleck, Holly Hughes and Tim Miller,
who became known as the ``NEA Four'' challenged the provision by filing
a lawsuit in September 1990 in Los Angeles federal court seeking an
order overruling their grant rejections.
	Fleck and Miller are Los Angeles area performing artists, and Finley
and Hughes are performing artists from New York.
	Hughes said she was very happy about Tashima's decision.
	``I'm very happy that the court has decided that people who receive
money from the government don't have to forfeit rights guaranteed to
them in that government's Constitution,'' she said.``
	The artists' work is highly political. All but Finley is homosexual
and the artists include homosexual and lesbian themes prominently in
their work, which has received broad critical acclaim.
	Finley's performances are stridently feminist in tone. She has
appeared on stage partially clothed, her body smeared with melted
chocolate and alfalfa sprouts to symbolize denigration of women by
forcing them to wallow in excrement and sperm.
	Finley and Miller previously received numerous NEA grants.
	The plight of the four attracted national attention when Frohnmayer
overruled the unanimous vote of grant-review panel and rejected the
fellowships.
	The decision was made after Frohnmayer reportedly told a meeting of
arts activists that the NEA's precarious political situation
necessitated denial of the grants.
	According to the lawsuit, Frohnmayer sacrificed the artists ``because
of the controversial political content of their work. He did so with the
aim of suppressing the expression of the plaintiff's ideas.''
	The suit asked for an additional $50,000 in damages to Finley, whose
privacy rights were violated, the complaint charged, by an alleged NEA
leak to conservative columnists of her confidential NEA grant
application.
	The NEA gives grants to artists and arts institutions nationwide. Its
political turmoil began in April 1989 with the NEA-funded work of
photographer Robert Mapplethorpe. A show of his work, which included
homo-erotic art, was the subject of a state court obscenity prosecution
in Cincinnati.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Jun  7 23:41:13 1992
From: jwarren@AUTODESK.COM(Jim Warren)
Subject: Article 6--File 3--Major Congressional Candidates Commit to Elec. Civil Liberties
Message-Id: <fwd.9206080338.AA02150@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>

Five Leading San Francisco Peninsula Congressional Candidates Sign
Explicit Commitments to Protect "Electronic Civil Liberties"

All but one of the six leading candidates for California's 14th
Congressional District have formally committed to protect traditional
constitutional liberties against technological threats.  All three
Republican candidates and two of the three leading Democratic
candidates signed formal commitments.

The 14th District covers northern "Silicon Valley" and the southern
half of the San Francisco Peninsula.

This is believed to be the first time that major-party congressional
candidates have ever committed to explicit action to protect
technology-related civil liberties.

The candidates' signed statements that were much more than
nice-sounding, equivocating "God, mother and apple-pie" principles.
They made explicit commitments to take explicit action in their
first/next term in Congress.

Those 14th Dist candidates who signed the formal statement (below)
included:
Dixon Arnett (R),      Tom Huening (R),        Ted Lempert (D),
Tom Nolan (D),         Mike Maibach (R) and    Chuck Olson (L).

Gerry Andeen (D) sent a statement about the issues, but made NO
COMMITMENTS.

Anna Eshoo (D) FAILED TO RESPOND AFTER FOUR REQUESTS, as did
then-candidate James Blackman (D), after three requests.  The multiple
requests were faxed and mailed to the candidates between Apr. 4th and
Apr. 13th, along with an explanatory cover letter.

Lempert was the first to respond -- apparently by return mail -- and
added a two-page statement regarding technological threats to personal
privacy and his commitment to seek protection against them, as well.

  Arnett's response also noted that he was one of the cosponsors of
the Privacy Section that was added to the California Constitution
during his tenure in the state Assembly.

In addition, ten other Libertarian candidates signed the formal
statement, apparently circulated by Libertarian activists, primarily
using the computer nets.  Those signing included:
Alan F. Barksdale (U.S. Senate from Alabama),
Richard Boddie (U.S. Senate from California),
James Elwood (8th House Dist from California),
June R. Genis (U.S. Senate from California),
Robert D. Goodwyn (22nd California State Assembly Dist),
Chuck Hammill (47th California State Assembly Dist),
James J. Ludemann (California State Assembly),
George L. O'Brien (12th House Dist from California),
Anton Sherwood (12th California State Assembly Dist),
Mark Valverde (13th California State Assembly Dist) and
Will Wohler (3rd California State Senate Dist).

  Note:  This Libertarian sign-up resulted entirely from one copy
being sent by electronic-mail to June Genis (San Mateo County) and one
to Mark Hinkle (Santa Clara County activist).

Several others responded without committing to action:

  U.S. Senate candidate Tom Campbell (R) also sent a statement about
the issues, but offered NO COMMITMENTS TO EXPLICIT ACTION, as did
Glenn Tenney (D, 12th House).

  This effort was an outcome of disclosures before and during the
First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy, held near San
Francisco International Airport in March, 1991.  It drew over eighty
pages of public and trade press coverage, internationally.

This is the statement that was signed by the indicated candidates:

           Guaranteeing Constitutional Freedoms into the 21st Century

Preface

    Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe, one of the nation's
leading Constitutional scholars, views technological threats to our
traditional constitutional freedoms and protections as so serious that --
for the first time in his career -- he has proposed a Constitutional
Amendment:

    "This Constitution's protections for the freedoms of speech,
press, petition and assembly, and its protections against unreasonable
searches and seizures and the deprivation of life, liberty or property
without due process of law, should be construed as fully applicable
without regard to the technological method or medium through which
information content is generated, stored, altered, transmitted or
controlled."

    -- First Conf. on Computers, Freedom & Privacy, 3/27/91, Burlingame CA

    In the absence of such a constitutional clarification, legislation
and regulation are the only alternatives to assure that citizens are
protected from technological threats against their constitutional
rights and freedoms.


                    Candidate's Commitment to Action

    Preface:  It has been over two centuries since our Constitution
and Bill of Rights were adopted.  The great technological changes in
the interim --especially in computing, telecommunications and
electronics -- now pose a clear and present danger to the rights and
protections guaranteed in those great documents.  Therefore:

    Commitment:  In the first legislative session after I am
[re]elected, I will author or co-author legislation reflecting the
following specifics, and I will actively support and testify in favor
of any similar legislation as may be introduced by others.  Further, I
will actively seek to include in such legislation, explicit personal
civil and/or criminal penalties against any agent, employee or
official of the government who violates any of these statutes.  And
finally, I will keep all citizens who express interest in legislative
progress on these matters fully and timely informed.

    The protections guaranteed in the Constitution and its Amendments
shall be fully applicable regardless of the current technology of the
time. This particularly includes, but is not limited to:

    Speech:  Freedom of speech shall be equally protected, whether by
voice or in written form as in the 18th Century, or by electronic
transmission or computer communication as in the 20th Century and
thereafter.

    Press:  Freedom of the press shall be equally protected, whether
its information is distributed by print as in the 18th Century, or by
networked computers or other electronic forms, as in the 20th Century
and thereafter.  Liability for content:  Just as a printer is not
liable for content of leaflets printed for a customer, so also shall
the owner or operator of a computer or electronic or
telecommunications facility be held harmless for the content of
information distributed by users of that facility, except as the owner
or operator may, by contract, control information content.  Those who
author statements and those who have contractual authority to control
content shall be the parties singularly responsible for such content.

    Assembly:  Freedom of assembly shall be equally protected, whether
by face-to-face meeting as in the 18th Century, or by computer-based
electronic-conference or other teleconference as in the 20th Century
and thereafter.  The right to hold confidential meetings shall be
equally protected, whether they be by personal meeting in private
chambers, or by computer-assisted or electronic-based means.

    Self-defense:  The right of the people to keep and use computers
and communications connections shall not be abridged by the
government.

    Search & seizure:  The right of the people to be secure in their
papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
be fully applicable to their electronic mail, computerized information
and personal computer systems.

Warrants:  No warrants for search or seizure shall issue for
computerized information, but upon probable cause, supported by oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the computer system to be
searched and the specific information to be seized.

Secure information vaults:  Just as search and seizure of letters in a
post-office, and papers in a bank-vault lock-box, and surveillance of
telephone conversations by wire-tap, each require a separate warrant
for each postal address, lock-box and telephone line, so also shall a
separate warrant be required for each electronic-mail address and/or
computer files of each suspect, when stored in a computer facility or
archive shared by others.  And further, computer files stored in a
shared facility or archive by or for a citizen who is neither named in
a warrant nor associated with a suspect so-named, may not be used
against that un-named citizen, if seized or discovered during legal
search of or for files of a suspect.

    Self-incrimination:  No person shall be compelled in any civil or
criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself, nor be
compelled to provide information retained only in their mind, nor
otherwise be compelled to assist the translation or decoding of
information that he or she believes may be self-incriminating.

    Property: Private property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation, nor shall such property be used nor sold by any
government agency for less than fair market value, in which case all such
proceeds shall promptly derive singularly to its last owner prior to
government seizure.

    Speedy release:  Anyone not accused of a crime shall enjoy the
right to a speedy release and return of all of their property, as may
be seized under any warrant, particularly including their computerized
information.  The government shall be fully liable for any damage
befalling property or information they have seized.


[ Additional copies of this model candidate's position commitment are
available from:
  Jim Warren, Electronic Democracy Initiatives,
  345 Swett Road, Woodside CA 94062; (415)851-7075, fax/(415)851-2814;
  electronic-mail/  jwarren@autodesk.com  -or-  jwarren@well.sf.ca.us
For identification purposes, only:  organized and chaired the First
Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy (3/91), received one of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation's first Pioneer Awards (3/92), is a
"futures" columnist for MicroTimes, an Autodesk Board member, the founder
of InfoWorld, PBS-TV "Computer Chronicles" founding host, etc. ]


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 13:26:42 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Article 7--Standard Mngr's Reply Rev. A
Date: 10 Jun 92 13:56:32 GMT

The"Standard Manager's Reply" sent to people
complaining about the content of the e-mail or newsgroup
posting of a subscriber to the manager's system, Rev. A.                                             
                                                                            

"(1) This system believes in freedom of expression
within the bounds of the law;
              
                   
(2) If you do not like the content of an individuals
newsgroup posting, then read your newreader's
manual entry on how to use the "killfile";                                   


(3) If you do not like the content of an individuals
e-mail, then feel free to delete it without reading it. 
Continued e-mail after explicit requests to stop may
constitute harassment.  Inquire among your local
authorities.


(4) If you believe the content of a posting is contrary 
to law, then inform the proper authorities;


(5) System managers are not the court of last resort
in case you are losing an argument on the net.  Refer
to "The Art of Clear Thinking" by Rudolph Flesch,
"Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument" by Ward
Fearnside or other similar book for more information
on how to argue without whining to your parents."


-- 
Grady Ward    grady@btr.com    KD6ETH/AA @ K6LY    Moby Lexicons


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Jun 15 13:26:26 1992
From: gritton@alaska.caedm.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Article 8--Re: standard managers reply
Date: Mon,  8 Jun 92 09:08:14 MDT

grady@btr.BTR.COM (Grady Ward  grady@btr.com) writes:

> (1) This system believes in freedom of speech within     
> the bounds of the law;

   But if it's a private machine, the bounds of the law don't force
the owner to propagate potentially offensive messages. I say
"potentially offensive" because that way a system manager may restrict
all mail based on reports of offensive mail without actually reading
any of the accused user's private correspondence. It's rather
repressive, but diesn't bring up any sticky privacy issues.
                                  
> (2) If you do not like the content of an individuals
> newsgroup posting, then read the rn manual entry on
> how to use the "kill file";

   Reasonable.

> (3) If you do not like the content of an individuals
> e-mail, then feel perfectly free to delete it without
> reading it.  Refer to the mail manual entry for more
> information;

   Not reasonable. Unlike news, which is a broadcast medium, mail is
directed specifically to the reader. This makes offensive mail the
reponsibility of the sender as well as the reader. A more reasonable
solution to the problem is to ask the offending sender to stop sending
offensive mail. After repeated complaints (and talking to the
offender), I would consider revoking either mail priveleges or the
entire account.

> (4) If you believe the content of a posting is contrary 
> to law, then inform the proper authorities;

> (5) System managers are not the court of last resort
> in case you are losing an argument on the net.  Refer
> to "The Art of Clear Thinking" by Rudolph Flesch,
> "Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument" by Fearnside
> or other similar book for more information on how to
> argue without whining to mother.

   They certainly can be effective though. And people who are prone to
mailing obcenities are not always renowned for clear thinking :-).
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Jun 11 14:18:58 1992
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 9--Re: vax harrassment
Date: 11 Jun 92 18:07:12 GMT

>Is it illegal to harass me over the vax, and how do I deal with someone 
>who is? Please respond before June 12.

Verbal harassment is (roughly) intentional, unwanted, person-to-person
communications. So, repeated unwanted email can be harassment.
Articles that offend you in a newspaper or public newsgroup likely
aren't.

Harassment by computer is still harassment.

First, be sure you have explicitly told the harasser to stop
communicating with you. Save copies of unwanted communications.

Then, if the harassment continues, ask for help from the computer
administrators (yours or the harasser's), the university, or the
courts to stop the communications. On some systems, you can filter out
email from the harasser yourself.

What not to do: Don't harass back; *you* might end up in more trouble
your harasser.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
law/gates-v-brewer
=================
An excerpt from a newspaper article about email harassment. A judge
agreed that Bill Gates of Mircosoft had been the victim of harassment.

=================
faq/censorship-and-harassment
=================
q: Must/should universities ban material that some find offensive
(from Netnews facilities, email, libraries, and student publications,
etc) in order to comply with antiharassment laws?

=================
news/cafv02n11
=================
Includes two articles about filter email on a unix system.

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

These documents are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method)
and by email. To get the files via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/law/gates-v-brewer
  pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment
  pub/academic/news/cafv02n11

To get the files 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 gates-v-brewer
send acad-freedom/faq censorship-and-harassment
send acad-freedom/news cafv02n11


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


------------------------------

From caf-talk Caf Jun  4 11:30:25 1992
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 10--Anonymous postings (was: []  More S/H)
Date: 4 Jun 92 14:37:44 GMT

>From article <199206031420.AA02810@eff.org>, by kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie):
> 
> Since it would appear that the S/H incident occured on a system where the
> students could do anonymous postings, it presents one more reason to ask
> if there is a solid reason for having anonymous accounts.

I will not support anonymous accounts where anyone can log in, but I feel
very strongly that there should be a way for people to make truly anonymous
postings and a way for people to send truly anonymous E-mail -- in a
controlled way.

I teach, and although I don't think of myself as being an ogre, many of my
students seem to think that I am one.  One unfortunate consequence of this
is that many students are afraid to ask questions for fear of looking
foolish, either in the eyes of their peers or in my eyes.  I encourage
students to ask questions by E-mail to provide an alternative and more
private way for them to ask questions, and I tell them that I don't bother
remembering who asked and that I won't hold their questions against them.
Nonetheless, many hesitate to ask by that channel because it does expose
their identity.  If I could offer my students a way to send anonymous mail
to me, I feel that it would be a significant aid!

The minimum technical requirements that I feel apply to anonymous mail are
that both the sender and receiver agree that the communication should be
anonymous.  The sender should be given the option of sending anonymously,
and the default should be that anonymous mail is discarded unless I choose
to see what is being sent to me anonymously.  With appropriate protocols,
it should be possible for the sender to be informed of whether or not I am
willing to read anonymous mail.

Replying to anonymous mail is a separate problem.  The various anonymous
posting services that people have patched together for USENET require that
the sender of an anonymous piece register with the service so that the
service can forward replies.  This only guarantees anonymity to the sender
to the extent that the sender trusts the service, and if I, as an "ogre
professor", am running an anonymous mail server for my students, I don't
see why they'd want to trust me.

A better scheme might be to allow anonymous postings to moderated
newsgroups.  Then, I could establish a local newsgroup for my class and
act as moderator.  I would want to guarantee to my students that their
postings were actually anonymous, that is, that no personal identifying
information was available to me, the newsgroup moderator (keep in mind
that I have access to lots of log files on the machines in question!).
Then, I could accept anonymous questions and post the questions along
with my replies to the newsgroup that everyone in the class could read.

I should note that the PLATO project at the University of Illinois managed
to work their way through most of the above arguments about anonymous
posting back in the 1970's, and that the resulting anonymous posting
services offered for PLATO notesfiles met my requirements quite well by
the end of the 1970's.  PLATO is alive and well at the U of Illinois under
a new name, NOVANET, and they have had experience with large scale use of
the newsgroup idea (in the form of notesfiles) for longer than any other
organization that I know of.
					Doug Jones
					jones@cs.uiowa.edu




------------------------------

End of Computers and Academic Freedom News (Digest)
************************************
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.news