From: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 22:21:20 -0500
Subject: Abstract of CAF-News 02.62
Newsgroups: comp.society

[See the end of this article for information about obtaining the full
CAF-News electronically and about CAF-News in general.]

Topics discussed in CAF-News 02.62:

   1      deals with the subject of cancelling postings by other people
   2-4    deal with an advisory from the Computer Emergency Response Team
               (CERT), which dealt with the questionable legality of
               "keystroke monitoring" under US law
   5      a long annotated posting regarding the student disciplinary system
               of the U of Illinois
   6-9    deal with a warning given to a user for "obscenities and name-
               calling" on the Internet
   10-12  deal with a "joke" chain letter; whether it is really a chain
               letter or not; and what the appropriate response if any should
               be to such letters

Abstract of CAF-News 02.62:
[Week ending December 13, 1992

========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASE of the
article, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================

Note 1 deals with the subject of cancelling postings by other
people.

1.  A copyright holder has the right to cancel a posting by someone
else if the copyright holder believes that the posting violates his or
her copyright. "While I haven't done it, I believe that I have every
right to cancel any illicit posting of a ClariNet article should I
wish to."
        <1992Dec07.074709.17211@clarinet.com>

Notes 2-4 deal with an advisory from the Computer Emergency
Response Team (CERT), which dealt with the questionable legality of
"keystroke monitoring" under US law.

2.  I'm enclosing "information from the United States Department of
Justice, General Litigation and Legal Advice Section, Criminal
Division, regarding keystroke monitoring by computer systems
administrators, as a method of protecting computer systems from
unauthorized access." 18 U.S.C. 2510 (1986). It states that such
surveillance "may be defensible" but "the statute does not expressly
authorize such monitoring." It recommends that if system
administrators plan to engage in such monitoring, that the system
include a banner at login that warns that users may be monitored.
        <1992Dec8.041023.4125@eff.org>

3.  "I strongly suggest that everyone who values privacy and freedom
stop all cooperation with an organization (CERT) that recommends
fascist and Orwellian policies like this." I'd be willing to set up
archives and a mailing list in Finland for "responsible net.citizens
who value both security and privacy."
        <1992Dec10.025308.14768@nntp.hut.fi>

4.  "CERT explicitly neither condoned nor censured keystroke
monitoring in their message.  Rather they disseminated what is
believed (by US DoJ) to be the latest accurate information about
the legal implications and recourse of those sites that do."
        <1992Dec10.123018.8974@athena.mit.edu>

Note 5 is a long annotated posting regarding the student
disciplinary system of the U of Illinois.

5.  Here is a reprint of a letter from the University of Illinois
Student Government Association Task Force which appeared in the Dec.
4, 1992, _Daily Illini_. It says "We have discovered that the
University student disciplinary system contains several severe flaws
that permit students to incriminate themselves, denies them the right
of counsel and places their future in the hands of a committee that is
unaware of proper legal procedure." I'm enclosing information
accessing related documenation via gopher.
        <Bz22F8.32E@cs.uiuc.edu>

Notes 6-9 deal with a warning given to a user for "obscenities and
name-calling" on the Internet.

6.  [The recipient of the warning] "Doesn't this constitute a
subtle form of censorship?"
        <1992Dec11.155303.5068@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>

7.  "I don't think it's censorship.  They could have just turned
off your account or (like here) revoked your ability to post
articles to the net, and that would have been censorship.  All I
see is a polite request that you police yourself.  Had they said
'or else...' on the end or threatened punitive measures, then that
would be closer to censorship".
        <1992Dec11.192941.4095@bradley.bradley.edu>

8.  "While freedom of expression at private universities is not a
legal constitutional right, it is usually a legal contractual right".
I'm enclosing several references in support of the constractual right
to be 'free from censorship'.
        <Bz46zJ.JJE@cs.uiuc.edu>

9.  "It's often been said (in this forum), 'It's good to just have
a chat with someone, rather than arbitrarily yanking their
account/access/privileges.'

Now, when an admin sends an apparently polite note to a user, we're
right back into the ambiguities of 'warning', 'threat', and 'possible
punitive measures'".
        <1992Dec11.182435.13904@ms.uky.edu>

Notes 10-12 deal with a "joke" chain letter; whether it is really
a chain letter or not; and what the appropriate response if any
should be to such letters.

10.  A wave of chain letter mania is sweeping the University of
Nebraska at Omaha. A new login message has been instituted which warns
that sending a chain letter on may result in "loss of account
privileges." The text of the joke chain letter is included. "The new
policy seems to skate dangerously close to censorship and
prior-restraint (what exactly *is* a 'chain- letter?')."
        <pschleck.724051408@cwis>

11.  "I read the joke chain letter. I don't think it is a chain
letter (any more than a toy car is car). Thus, I don't think the
new prohibition even covers the specific material they want to
ban... Here is what I think they should have done:

 1) Announced that this joke letter is going around
 2) Ask people to be considerate about what they email to others
 2) Remind people of the University's rules about harassment"
        <1992Dec11.165515.22434@eff.org>

12.  [Sys admin involved in the 'joke chain letter' controversy] "I
believe strongly in rights to academic freedom; to that end, I've put
considerable time and effort into making the resources of the Internet
available to as many people here as possible.  That belief is one of
the reasons we maintain a full news feed under pressure to limit what
we carry (the type of pressure to which Universities in our system
have caved in)." However, the joke chain letter is an issue of
"resource abuse" rather than censorship.
        <cwis.724110716@cwis>

- Henry E. Hardy, seraphim@ais.org]


About CAF-News:

The abstract is for the most recent "Computers and Academic Freedom News"
(CAF-News). The full CAF-News is available via anonymous ftp or by
email. For ftp access, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4). Get file "pub/academic/news/cafv02n62".
The full CAF-News is also available via email. Send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line:

send caf-news cafv02n62


CAF-News is a weekly digest of notes from CAF-talk.

CAF-News is available as newsgroup alt.comp.acad-freedom.news or via
email. If you read newsgroups but your site doesn't get
alt.comp.acad-freedom.news, (politely) ask your sys admin to
subscribe. For info on email delivery, send email to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the line

send acad-freedom caf

Back issues of CAF-News are available via anonymous ftp or via email.
Ftp to ftp.eff.org. The directory is pub/academic/news. For
information about email access to the archive, send an email note to
archive-server@eff.org. Include the lines:

send acad-freedom README
help
index

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, John F. Nixon, Aaron Barnhart, 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.


--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =