HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Reply-To: bud@mtek.com
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 18:29:12 GMT

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

>Banned Computer Material 1992

>Inspired by Banned Book Week '92, this is a list of computer material
>banned or challenged in academia in 1992. Iowa State University has
>the dubious distinction of being listed most often (three times).

Ummm, the word "dubious" would seem to suggest that the enforcement
of *any* local restriction against *any* action or speech in *any*
academic computing environment, world-wide, is in violation of some
"universal principle" that supercedes any locally-conceived ideas
about how the owners wish to dispose the assets they are paying for.

What a strange idea.

Are you suggesting that some Spanish Jesuit seminary (which just
happens to have a computer network) must conform in its decisions
with the minimum standards of behavior and speech found tolerable
*anywhere* else on the face of the planet? Is Southern California
that society which models such (doubtful) world standard? Who sez?

Are you under the misapprehension that the Germans are -- as a
society -- any more likely to adopt all our (read USA) standards
of behavior any more readily than adopting our (perhaps equally
indefinite) standards for building automobiles. Surely you jest.

There is a clear distinction between absolute academic freedom (as
an abstract notion) and absolute personal license (manifest in
actual and specific behaviors).

A limitation upon the latter does not, a priori, constitute an
assault upon the former. Defending the latter as an inseperable
*subset* of the former (if that is what this list implies) would
be a simple, specious nonsense.

I might also add that this looks remarkably like an "Enemies List",
which device typically sets academics to howling wildly at the
moon -- but perhaps only when aimed at their *own* several and
peculiar sensibilities.

'Hardly classical liberal thought, which did not assume the pillory
to be the solitary universal response appropriate for conflicting
values and judgements. Quite the contrary.

If such liberal ideals are the foundation of "academic freedom",
then what to conclude but that such freedom may have quietly died,
obscured from notice because the embalmed cadaver continues to be
loudly heralded from the parapets, its health to be roundly toasted
in the local watering holes, and its dry remains to be enthusias-
tically bounced up and down the street on a plush litter with great
rejoicing under a heavily armed honor guard.

Yet be quite thoroughly dead, for all that.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Reply-To: bud@mtek.com
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 16:13:01 GMT

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:

>[...]
>>Also, I frankly have little patience for dealing with what some snot-
>>nosed teenager whose parents have come up with tuition may have to say
>>on the subject, based solely upon his belief that one slow reading of
>>the Bill of Rights entitles him to thus draw sweeping conclusions
>>about what *must* have been in the minds of the Founding Fathers with
>>regard to his personal login privileges.
>>
>>Most of the people who post here, by contrast, bring at least some
>>modicum of experience and thoughtfulness to the discussion.
>[...]

>It appears that one person who posts here brings a modicum of rudeness
>to the forum.

Dispute the content. Else push off. If my statement above does injury
to one of your major constituencies, then that is one of the several
hazards which accompanies the presumed benefit of accepting their
undiscriminating support.

And as to rudeness, your list is rude in the extreme. I've not been 
the only person to point that out. You seem to be highly selective
about where you choose to apply your alleged standards. And that is
*precisely* the concern being expressed.

Again.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:46:20 GMT

bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:

[...]
>My larger concern is with the notion of an "enemies list" of offending
>(in his eyes) institutions which, presumably, Carl believes others
>should hotly pursue on his say-so for having taken decisions with which
>he (and others, no doubt) strongly disagrees.

No one should act on my say-so. Any action should be based on a belief
that something is wrong and should be taken within institutional
guidelines.

>Um, on just what date *are* we celebrating Krystalnacht this year?
[...]
The idea that publicizing censorship is the same as terrorizing Jews
is despicable.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: OpScan sheet - sale to students
Date: 5 Oct 1992 23:10:55 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu
Keywords: optical scanning sale

In article <1992Oct5.174939.14312@cabell.vcu.edu>, ssaltz@cabell.vcu.edu (Steven A. Saltzberg) writes:
> 
> Currently Virginia Commonwealth University has a policy of giving
> the Optical Scanning sheets used for test grading out (to the faculty
> administering the test) free of charge (actually the computer center 
> picks up the cost).  This is getting a bit expensive.  So we are
> evaluating letting the student store sell the opscan sheets (right 
> next to the Blue Books).  The concern is that the opscan sheets will
> be so damaged that the scanner can't read them.
> 
> Does any one out there have any advice?


Question, do you charge students for the blue books required to take exams? If
not then the ionstructors have budget accounts to pay for the things and you
should charge their budget source for the cost of the forms. Options would be:


1) Stock them as part of your administrative supples (in the same manner as 
you stock other office/instructional supplies).

2) Arrange with your accounting/financial services group to have the ability
to charge sources for money and whenever the instructors get forms, charge 
them for them directly.

3) Arrange for it to be carried as a line item on YOUR budget and continue with
the 'free' service.



-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:54:52 GMT

zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane) writes:

[...]
>This is the central point by which I object to ALL censorship by computer
>centre staff (and others) of material distributed via Netnews.  They make a
>decision based on hearsay, rumor and a occasional personal observation mixed
>together with their own beliefs and then place a blanket ban on the group. 
[...]

Also, an part of academic freedom is that policy should be made in the
open with the particpation from faculty and students.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
faq/policy
=================
q: What guidance is there for creating or evaluating a computer policy?

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

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/faq/policy

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/faq policy
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky comp.admin.policy:1184 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3030
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:22:46 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:

[...]
>By pronouncing summary judgement, you thereby attempt to finesse an
>appearance that debate has already *concluded* in favor of your own
>pet notions.
>
>It doesn't wash.
[...]

I confess that an implicit premise of the List is that academic
censorship of computer media is generally wrong. I'm sorry if this was
unclear. Now that you have "caught" me, you are welcome to argue
against this premise. A good forum for this continuing debate might be
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk (or the corresponding mailing list).

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

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

=================
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/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 caf


--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: wbg@mtek.com (W. Brewster Gillett)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 16:22:03 GMT

bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell) writes:

>The humerous part is that there have been recent suggestions that the

>bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu

The "humerous" part? Is that the part that connects to the ulna and the
radius somewhere near the elbow?

Sorry to inject frivolity into a serious debate!

"TAXES HAVE _ALWAYS_ BEEN THEFT!"

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
brew@mtek.com
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: pirmann@athos.rutgers.edu (David Pirmann)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: OpScan sheet - sale to students
Keywords: optical scanning sale
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:57:17 GMT
Organization: Rutgers University LCSR

ssaltz@cabell.vcu.edu (Steven A. Saltzberg) writes:

#Currently Virginia Commonwealth University has a policy of giving
#the Optical Scanning sheets used for test grading out (to the faculty
#administering the test) free of charge (actually the computer center 
#picks up the cost).  This is getting a bit expensive.  So we are
#evaluating letting the student store sell the opscan sheets (right 
#next to the Blue Books).  The concern is that the opscan sheets will
#be so damaged that the scanner can't read them.

Are you kidding me?  Make the students PAY to take their exams?
Isn't that what tuition is for?!?!??!?!  Give me a break.  I don't know
how that would go over at VCU but here at Rutgers there would be more
than a few pissed off students storming your office...


dave
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:37:58 GMT

kadie@cs.uiuc.ed (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>>When resources are scarce, priorities have to be established. These
>>priorities should not, however, be used to removed material just
>>because some find it offensive. For example, if there are no resources
>>for "recreational" newsgroups, then both alt.sex and
>>rec.sport.football should go, not just alt.sex.

rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>So I suppose that a poorly funded program in phys ed must deny its
>football program access to rec.sport.football, just because it doesn't
>happen to have resources for alt.sex?

No ... in that case rec.sport.football would not be just recreational.
Similarly, at the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and
Reproduction, Indiana University-Bloomington, alt.sex would not be
just recreational. I'm sorry if my example was unclear or confusing.

[...]
>Wake up, Carl.  The world is a complex place.  There are many good
>reasons for limitations when resources are short.

... and many bad, no matter how many resources.

>But the reasons are local, so global solutions dictated by self
>appointed net gods will not do.
[...]
   
It is my hope that general principles based on academic and library
tradition and refined through discussion will prove useful to local
groups looking for solutions.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: berger@atropa (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: OpScan sheet - sale to students
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:27:30 GMT
Keywords: optical scanning sale

ssaltz@cabell.vcu.edu (Steven A. Saltzberg) writes:
>Currently Virginia Commonwealth University has a policy of giving
>the Optical Scanning sheets used for test grading out (to the faculty
>administering the test) free of charge (actually the computer center 
>picks up the cost).  This is getting a bit expensive.  So we are
>evaluating letting the student store sell the opscan sheets (right 
>next to the Blue Books).  The concern is that the opscan sheets will
>be so damaged that the scanner can't read them.

>Does any one out there have any advice?
*----
It sounds like it's fraught with problems.  What do you do about
the individuals that fail to bring the sheet on exam day?  How
do you keep students from turning them into crib sheets (since they're
read by machine, chances are that no other person will look
closely at them)?  And finally, consider why you started using
the scan system in the first place - it's cheaper and easier than
grading the old-fashioned way, when a human had to do the work.
It's not for the benefit of the student, but for the benefit
of the department.  So let the departments pay.
--
	Mike Berger
	Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
	AT&TNET     217-244-6067
	Internet    berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:37:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.221152.19307@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>In article <1992Oct2.211604.3005@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>>For example, if there are no resources
>>for "recreational" newsgroups, then both alt.sex and
>>rec.sport.football should go, not just alt.sex.
>
>So I suppose that a poorly funded program in phys ed must deny its
>football program access to rec.sport.football, just because it doesn't
>happen to have resources for alt.sex?

I understand that it is becoming common practice for football coaches
to require players to read rec.sport.football in its entirety.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Freedom Of Speech
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:30:39 GMT
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.

In article <20567.9210021359@pyr.swan.ac.uk> iiitac@PYR.SWAN.AC.UK (Alan Cox) writes:
>go into a us army barracks and explain to them that you are gay, or a
>communist - thats censorship too, censorship by fear. Don't ever

Those are not speech issues - you can call yourself anything you like in an
army barracks, and (except in boot camp) nothing official can happen to you
unless you are proven to be such things.

Now, it is an ethical issue whether gays should be allowed in the military, but
not a free speech one.


-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
Xref: sparky comp.admin.policy:1093 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2872 misc.legal.computing:2142
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Keywords: Corporate Computing, September 1992
Date: 26 Sep 92 07:00:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Sep26.070035.7902
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:

>I cannot envision a situation in which the "common carrier", MCI, would
>have the need or the contractual right to read its customers' email.

Depends on the internals of MCIMail. 

There might be a problem that trashed part of the address, so they'd
have to examine the rest of the "packet" to see where it goes.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: MCI E-mail Snooping
Summary: More on this stuff
Keywords: Corporate Computing, September 1992
Organization: VideOcart Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:58:53 GMT

In article <Bv704q.JMz@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.070306.8031@qiclab.scn.rain.com> 70465.203@compuserve.com writes:
>>Sorry, but according to the laws, a sysadmin can read *anything* if
>>it is necessary to keep the system working or to fix a problem.
>
>"According to the laws..."  Which laws are these?  Can you provide 
>specific references?

The ECPA provides an exception for service providers in the course of their
duties (which certainly includes keeping the system running or fixing
problems).

>I suppose that in general it probably is legal, or more to the point, in
>general it is probably not illegal.  However, MCI may be a different
>case, as they are already a common carrier... are they allowed to listen
>in on telephone conversations?

To insure that connections are clean and trouble-free (which probably
includes spot-checks to verify this), yes.

--
Karl Denninger 		Inet:  kdenning@hq.videocart.com
VideOcart Inc.		Voice: (312) 987-5022
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Computers & Education
From: rhorowit@mondrian.CSUFresno.EDU (Rick Horowitz)
Date: 26 Sep 92 15:10:50 PDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California State University, Fresno

Hi.  I've recently been appointed to the Education subcommittee of 
the Information Technology & Resources Committee at our university.  
I am the sole student member; I'm an undergrad. 

Shortly, I will be presenting to this subcommittee information about 
students' needs regarding computer resources.  With suggestions for
fulfilling these needs. 

Very roughly speaking, I intend to discuss: 

What is theoretically available.
What is practically available.
Suggestions for bringing the above two closer.

As there are no locally extant models for providing services to students, 
I'm interested in hearing (from either students or sysadmins) what is 
theoretically available and how other universities have attempted to 
make resources available to students.  

I'm also especially interested in hearing about policies regarding 
charging students for accounts.  I'm considering proposing looking
into this option as a way of opening up the resources to more students.
My hope is that if it looks like some of the costs will be offset by
billing students for accounts per semester then the idea of making
the resources more readily available will be accepted.  Also, I could
point out to those who think students will 'misuse' the accounts,
instead of using them as legitimate research tools, could be 
placated by the idea that students probably wouldn't pay for accounts
unless they thought they needed them.  Anyway, comments on this idea
are especially desired.  

Any and all input is most welcome.  Please e-mail me at the address 
noted below.

||======================================================================||
||  Rick Horowitz                  || Christ died for our sins.  Dare   ||
||  CSUFresno, Philosophy          || we make his martyrdom meaningless ||
||  rick_horowitz@csufresno.edu    || by not committing them?           ||
||  gavagai@aol.com                ||                  -Jules Feiffer   ||
||======================================================================||
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Locking out users
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:59:48 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep21.092710.18030@aston.ac.uk> evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
|jim@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
|: 
|: From the user's perspective, this seems to be an unfair policy.  How is J.
|: Random User going to know that the password they enter is easily cracked?
|: Besides, this problem can be solved much more easily by using a passwd
|: program which disallows use of crackable passwords.  As it is, you are
|: trying to catch the problem after it's happened.
|
|This dosn't work to well, because it can easily result in people
|writing the passwords down.

This depends on how `arcane' the password program insists the passwords be.
A fairly simple set of heuristics, or simply a run through the cracker
as part of selecting a password, leaves a great many memorable passowrds
available.  (The main problem is for systems that are only used occasionally,
there it is often difficult to remember even a memorable password).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy