From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.admin.policy] Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:29:35 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: gokhman@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Dmitry Gokhman)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 23:43:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.190538.6218@ERA.COM> feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit) writes:
>If that's the way you think everything should be enforced, you're
>living in the wrong country.  Selective enforcement goes on every day.

In general, I think selective enforcement comes into
play when the rules are a little too strict, so that too many 
ordinary people are breaking them in the course of their routine activities.
I cases like these, since enforcers often cannot change the rules,
they must resort to selective enforcement.  Computer admins are often
in an exceptional situation of being able to write the rules as well
as being the ones enforcing them.  Since selective enforcement relies
on their own discretion, they tend to ignore the fact that such a system
is inherently susceptible to corruption (to be extreme, consider
Stalin's purges as selective enforcement).  There is though a great
opportunity to taylor the rules in such a way as to not hinder the
ordinary user, but still have a system where the few irresponsible users
can be dealt with (after all that's what rules are for).

>Look at traffic.  If we tried to eliminate it by stationing a police
>officer every quarter-mile on every street to catch and enforce
>EVERYTHING, none of us would ever make it to work in the morning.

I think you mean eliminate traffic infractions.  You brought up
traffic enforcement as an example of selective enforcement.  
That it is.  It is also very corrupt in the sense that most traffic
rules are unnecessarily restrictive (e.g. a recent survey showed that
an overwhelming majority of speed limits are too low for the road
conditions).  As a result the states and the county mounties have
a wonderful source of revenue and, as long as enforcement remains
selective, most people don't feel an urgency to do something about it.

Selma, TX, a tiny community on the outskirts of San Antonio,
enforced the 55 mph limit on I-35 vigorously, raking in unbelievable
amounts of money (and earning a spot on CBS '60 minutes'),
until enough state legislators got fined and pushed
through a change in the apportionment of fines.

>There's a tradeoff here: Society won't keep you under constant
>scrutiny, and in exchange society expects you to be responsible enough
>to follow the rules.  They call that SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, and it's
>something I think a lot of people in this country have lost sight of.

Couldn't agree with you more.  I want to add that with enough
irresponsible people around you need a mechanism to shield those
who are responsible from the pernicious effects of the inevitable
(and necessary) clampdown on the former.

It is a law of human nature, that responsibilities go hand in hand with rights.
The actual amount varies with circumstances.
A curious example of this is taking place right now.  Many of the former
Communist police states are reduced to utter chaos once strict enforcement
of people's lives is ended.  People who have lived without rights, cannot
cope with ordinary responsibilities a free citizen is expected to have.

Back at the ranch, I think many admins (not just computer ones) tend
to overreact to irresponsible acts by placing general restrictions
that would presumably prevent such acts in the future without giving
much thought to ultimate consequences of such a trend.  The quick
fix is easier than dealing with the jerks, but the quality
of life (and computing) is reduced for everyone.

For example, when I was a grad student in Berkeley, the mail room was
vandalized and the reaction to that moronic act was not to find
the culprits and expel them from our midst,
but to restrict access to the room to just office hours.
This is not an isolated incident, everywhere I have been,
the quality of existence is gradually eroded by the cumulative
effects of occasional irresponsibility and reaction to it.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
- Mr. Gumby    * \oo7    Dmitry Gokhman -> gokhman@ringer.cs.utsa.edu
   says:        `/v/-*   
MY BRAIN HURTS  J  L             YOUR AD HERE!
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk