From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Re: DRAFT Student Access/Use Policy
Keywords: opinions welcome.......
    <1992Apr13.92643.3006@ms.uky.edu> <1992Apr13.152305.18668@eff.org>
Organization: The Puzzle Palace, UKentucky
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:43:06 GMT
X-Bytes: 

kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>The whole temporary/permanent access restriction/reduction is very,
>very complex and confusing. Here is a summary:
>
>It is open for abuse by the ECC staff. (I don't think that Wes Morgan
>would abuse "his own" policy, but others could). I think the procedure
>could be improved by mentioning in parts B and C that supensions and
>restrictions before a finding will only be imposed "for reasons
>relating to his physical or emotional safety and well being, or for
>reasons relating to the safety and well-being of students, faculty, or
>university property." [student.freedoms] This could be reenforced
>having the head of ECC OK such actions. (Similar to the OK required in
>the U. of Delaware policy).

While I thought that the "University property" angle was rather obvious,
I'll put something in the next draft.  I'll also put an express approval
requirement in place.

>Part C is especially unclear about how the restiction "depends" on the
>nature of the charges. A staff member could read it and this that he
>or she is suppose to punish users before it has been determined that
>they have volated policy.

Hmmmm....how about adding this?

	"Any restrictions placed on your computing access must be 
	 directly related to the charges filed against you.  Any
	 restrictions must be approved by the Director of Engineering
	 Computing prior to their initiation."

That would (hopefully) prevent restriction of telnet/ftp access of a user 
who was under plagiarism charges. (or the like)
	

>Which gives me a chance to use a quote that I've been saving for
>weeks:
>
>   "No, no," said the Queen: "The sentence first -- the verdict
>    afterwards." -- Lewis Carroll, _Alice in Wonderland_.

Glad to give you the opportunity, Carl; it's isn't quite as weighty
as your quote from William Douglas, but I like it.   8)

>This probably also applies if they merely appear to violate policy.
>The staff shouldn't assume that a violation has occured until
>after at speaking with the user.

OK, how about:
	"In the event that you, knowingly or unknowingly, appear to have
	 violated ECC or University policy, the ECC will attempt to con-
	 tact you."

>"If you do not register your complaint with either the Director of
>                             ^^^^^^^^^
>Engineering Computing or the Assistant Dean, it is expected that you
>will follow the instructions given to you."
>--
>Contesting an accusation is not a "complaint".

Agreed; I'll change it to "appeal".

>6.2   Temporary revocations of computing access will be dissolved within
>      one working day of the resolution of the violation.
>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^
>--
>There may not be a violation; it may only appear that way.

You're right.  How about changing "violation" to "problem" or "situation"?

--Wes

-- 
 morgan@ms.uky.edu    |Wes Morgan, not speaking for|     ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
 morgan@engr.uky.edu  |the University of Kentucky's|   morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
 morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
        "I was going to rip your head off, but I'm past that now."
Xref: sparky comp.admin.policy:744 rec.games.mud:4974