From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.37 (Digest)
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:54:04 GMT

Computers and Academic Freedom News
Vol. 02, No. 37


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

From: emr@eff.org (Elizabeth M. Reid)
Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.37

[Week ending August 2nd, 1992

   [Issues #28, #33, #34, #35, and #36 in production - Carl]

========================== 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.
===============================================================


Notes 1 to 3 concern whether or not to grant access to a deceased
user's account to the user's family.

1. "Today we [had] a very interesting and sensitive situation arise --
a user passed away and now the user's parents would like access to the
user's account."  Given that I feel a user's account to be private,
and that the account "may contain information that could be considered
`sensitive' or `revealing'" what should I do?
    <1992Jul23.215931.13522@menudo.uh.edu>

2. The executor of the user's estate should have the legal right - and
obligation - to inspect the user's account, along with all his or her
other effects.
    <1992Jul29.100142.21482@ms.uky.edu>

3. I doubt that the user's heirs or executors have the right to *use*
the account.  Whether they have a right to a copy of the files held in
the account is more difficult to determine.  Some of the files might
be the property of the owners of the machine.  It might be difficult
to decide which files were the user's personal property and which were
not.
    <1992Jul29.215819.15965@news.iastate.edu>


Notes 4 to 6 are part of a debate on censorship which has arisen in
the wake of the refusal of some Canadian universities to carry
alt.sex.* groups, and the publication of an article entitled
"Computers Graphic When it Comes to Porn" in the Canadian newspaper
_The Globe and Mail_.

4. "There are three main questions here:... (1) Is there erotic
material that, if it were readily available, would make some people
more prone to commit acts of rape and child sexual abuse?... (2) Is
the risk (in terms of infringement of general human rights) of
censoring such material so high that we should allow it to be
available anyway?... [and] (3) Where do you draw the line?"
    <1992Jul31.235725.25121@cs.sfu.ca>

5. "Don't shut people out of information, the more information we have
the wiser we become... I propose that the elimination of a.s.b. was an
elimination of a group comitted to the dissemination of information
with regards to a consensual activity, that sought to avoid any damage
to the psyche or body of it's practitioners.
    <hurd.712717031@sfu.ca>

6. This article, which seeks to correct the view of the Internet as a
public medium for the dissemination of "sleazy" material, has been
sent to the editor of the _Globe & Mail_.
    <philip.12@SMU.StMarys.CA>


Articles 7 to 9 are on miscellaneous subjects.

7. "You have every right, as the administrator, representing the owner
of the machine, to make certain restrictions.  Having Freedom of
Speech doesn't obligate anyone to Provide the Soap Box.  But it won't
do you a whole lot of good in the long run."
    <18937@fritz.filenet.com>

8. [Forwarded from the Computer Underground Digest] At a hearing this
week before the National Commission on Library and Information
Science, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
recommended a privacy policy for the National Research and Education
Network or `NREN.'
    <9207281913.AA11355@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>

9. The policy of the University of Kentucky's Engineering Computing
Centre will be that "The installation of recreational network
resources, such as MUD, Netrek, or IRC clients/servers, are explicitly
prohibited UNLESS these programs include use restrictions based on
time of day and number of users.  The installation of these resources
may only be performed by ECC staff."
    <1992Jul30.94721.2490@ms.uky.edu>

- Elizabeth]


In this issue:

Paul S. Sears    53  Survey on user privacy
Wes Morgan       37  >
John Hascall     45  >
Jamie Andrews   162  >"Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Peter L. Hurd   153  >
Philip Howard    98  >"Computers graphic...", letter to the Globe
                 60  >Articles violatating newgroups charter
Carl M. Kadie    70  [Cu Digest] CPSR Recommends NREN Privacy
Wes Morgan       72  >User services


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 Jul 28 17:47:14 1992
From: sears@tree.egr.uh.edu (Paul S. Sears)
Subject: Article 1--Survey on user privacy
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:59:31 GMT



Today we have a very interesting and sensitive situation arise -- a user  
passed away and now the user's parents would like access to the user's  
account.

This is a situation that I have not had to deal with before.  There are some  
ethical considerations that need to be understood.  I am wondering how other  
Administrators/Managers have handled similar situations.

1)  I consider a users's account to be "private" and that privacy would only  
be compromised by their own choice (i.e., lend their password to a friend, not  
acceptable under our computer usage policies, btw, but it does happen) or in  
the event of a system/security problem.  Is privacy still an issue when the  
user is deceased?

2)  The account of the deceased user may contain information that could be  
considered "sensitive" or "revealing."  And then it may not.  I am not in the  
position to determine what is sensitive.  However, there may be information in  
that account that the user would never want anyone to see.  But what about the  
desire of the parents to claim his "personal" files, much like cleaning out  
his office (this is being done also)?

3) Is there legal recourse for the parents or relatives of the user if access  
is denied?  

4) The current policy of Academic Computing is that the only person who can  
*legally* access an account is the one who signed the account application,  
which means that the parents cannot be given access.  In essence I agree, but  
shows a lack of compassion.  One manager suggested that I move all the users  
files to removable media and then give the media to the parents and then  
archive the account.  It is fairly obvious after searching through policies  
and talking with various administrators and managers that this it not a common  
problem.  Has any organization's computing policy explicitly cover this  
particular situation?  If so and the policy was to completely deny access, was  
that a decision that would legally hold water??  

I would really appreciate hearing from those who have faced a similar  
situation.  I would like to see this issue resolved fairly and ethically to  
all parties involved.  


I will provide a summary.

--
Paul S. Sears               * sears@uh.edu (NeXT Mail OK)
The University of Houston   * suggestions@tree.egr.uh.edu (NeXT
Engineering Computing Center*     comments, complaints, questions)
NeXT System Administration  * DoD#1967 '83 NightHawk 650SC SSI#755020059
"Programming is like sex: One mistake and you support it a lifetime."


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

From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 10:07:25 1992
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 2--Re: Survey on user privacy
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:01:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.215931.13522@menudo.uh.edu> sears@tree.egr.uh.edu writes:
>
>Today we have a very interesting and sensitive situation arise -- a user  
>passed away and now the user's parents would like access to the user's  
>account.
>
>This is a situation that I have not had to deal with before.  There are some  
>ethical considerations that need to be understood.  I am wondering how other  
>Administrators/Managers have handled similar situations.
>

One of my coworkers recently discovered that one of this University's 
systems still had an active userid for her father, who passed away in
1988 (OK, so the bookkeeping isn't quite up to par).

She will be approaching this situation from the legal standpoint of
'executor's privilege'.  In most states, the Executor of an estate
has, by law, access to ALL portions of the estate.  I would strongly
suspect that this access would extend to online resources of the estate.

After all, what if the deceased was working on a patent, book, or article
that could have monetary value to the estate?  In such an example, the
executor would have both the need AND the legal obligation to investigate
those resources.

Check with your local counsel; your mileage may vary.  

--Wes

-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu


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

From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 18:09:42 1992
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Article 3--Re: Survey on user privacy
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:58:19 GMT

morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
}sears@tree.egr.uh.edu writes:
}>Today we have a very interesting and sensitive situation arise -- a user  
}>passed away and now the user's parents would like access to the user's  
}>account.
}She will be approaching this situation from the legal standpoint of
}'executor's privilege'.  In most states, the Executor of an estate
}has, by law, access to ALL portions of the estate.  I would strongly
}suspect that this access would extend to online resources of the estate.
}After all, what if the deceased was working on a patent, book, or article
}that could have monetary value to the estate?  In such an example, the
}executor would have both the need AND the legal obligation to investigate
}those resources.

I think there are two questions here, because the original poster didn't
saw what "access" was:

	access == use of the account

	access == (a copy of) the files in the account

I doubt my heirs would have any claims on the use of my account (and rightly
so).  If it was something I paid, say, an annual fee for (at a public access
site or some such), then perhaps they would (or a refund).

As to whether they have claim to any of the files in my account is a stickier
question.  It would not be unreasonable for an employer to claim that anything
in my account was their property not mine (they bought it with my salary),
hence my heirs would have no claim.  Now, if my employer graciously allowed
me storage of personal files, then I would expect that my heirs would have a
claim on those.  But they would have no more claim on the Ultrix source here,
for example, then they would have on the desk in my office.  The question of
the who/how/when of this division of property would be more difficult than the
physical property in the office, I would think (it's pretty clear who owns the
desk, the boombox, etc., but what the devil is "xyz.17jun92"?).

John
-- 
John Hascall                                       ``Live with it pink-boy!''
Project Vincent                                                              
Iowa State University Computation Center                     john@iastate.edu
Ames, IA  50011                                      515/294-9551 [fax -1717]


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

From caf-talk Caf Aug  1 21:18:05 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Article 4--Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 23:57:25 GMT

     This non-"debate" is just amazing to me.  There's now a
standard litany of extremizations, generalizations, and ad
hominem attacks that gets trotted out every time someone objects
to the Absolute Freedom of Speech party line.

     The real "debate" content is about 1 percent.  It is very
possible to disagree with me and truly make some sensibly-
constructed counter-arguments.  To postings and email of this
kind, I always respond seriously.  The rest of the postings and
email, I either ignore or respond to with the ridicule they
deserve.

     Look.  There are three main questions here, and I seem to
disagree with most people on these newsgroups (though not with
most people in the world) about their answers.  Most of the rest
is just hot air.

			*	*	*

(1) Is there erotic material that, if it were readily available,
  would make some people more prone to commit acts of rape and
  child sexual abuse?

     I say "yes", many people say "no".  No one can "prove"
this, *one way or the other*.  The researchers are the first to
point out that their experiments don't "prove" anything.  But at
some point we have to move from what the experiments show to
public policy.  The decision to not ban, or unban, certain
material is just as much an experiment-based decision as the
decision to ban.

     Read Donnerstein and Malamuth's studies, Zillman and
Bryant's studies, and books like _Take Back the Night_ (which is
anti-pornography) and _Men Confronting Pornography_ (which is
not exclusively anti-pornography).  I defy anyone to still say,
after reading such material, that there is *no* erotic material
involving rape and sex with children which affects *anyone*
adversely.

     I'm not saying you will be affected, I'm not saying me,
I'm not saying most people.  But there are some who will be
affected, IMHO.  Which leads to the next question.

			*	*	*

(2) Is the risk (in terms of infringement of general human
  rights) of censoring such material so high that we should
  allow it to be available anyway?

     I say "no", many people say "yes".  I have no doubt that
the legalization of erotic material involving rape and sex with
children would lead to the creation of widely-accessible shops
and groups which distribute such material in such a way as to
reinforce, not break down, certain people's tendencies to commit
such acts.  There are already such groups, underground since
such material is illegal (in Canada), and we can never eliminate
them entirely; but we can at least restrict their accessibility.

     In fact, I have no doubt that alt.sex.bondage and
alt.sex.stories unwittingly serve such a purpose already, and
that there are rapists and child molesters who read the stories
and just ignore the discussions (too much of a turnoff).  The
reinforcement of these people's tendencies, and the resulting
real human misery, is too high a price to pay for some dogmatic
ideal of absolute freedom of speech.

			*	*	*

(3) Where do you draw the line?

     This is almost a non-question, since lawmakers, judges, and
juries have been drawing lines like this for centuries.  My
answer is that *I* don't draw the line, *they* do.

     The existence of censorship laws is not going to lead to
Stalinist repression of ideas any more than the existence of
traffic laws has led to Stalinist restrictions on movement.
The existing censorship laws will always lead to debate, and will
always be on the dividing line between what some people think and
what other people think.  That line has shifted a lot in recent
decades.  It will probably shift some more.

     I personally think the Canadian laws are not perfect,
insofar as they lump pro-rape erotica and consensual spanking
erotica together under "violence".  But I'm unlikely to get a
law which I consider perfect.  Neither are you.  My opinions are
not an attempt by me to control your reading, they are an attempt
to contribute to public discourse on a legal point.

			*	*	*

     Those are the main points.  The rest is just babble, and
the avoidance of these real discussions and the raising of the
standard litany of non-arguments is the mark of someone who
hasn't really thought things out.

     The latest poster child of this kind is John Chapman, of
right here at SFU.  I'll close with my comments to his postings,
tuned to the level of his discourse.

			*	*	*

>Just who the hell do you think you are, that you think you can tell me
>what to read?

     You must be thinking of someone else.  I haven't been
telling you what to read.

> You want the ability to draw lines? Fine. I suggest
>we only let people with 2 PhD's (or proven kernel hacking abilities -
>just to be flexible :-) decide what can appear in newspapers, books,
>movies etc.

     Fine, peace be upon you.  Now go argue your position in the
House of Commons, and see how far you get.

> In fact people who want to control other people seem especially
>dangerous - perhaps we should have them confined until they learn to
>see things the *correct* way......hmmmm?

     I think you should see the ship's counsellor about this
paradoxical self-hatred you have.

>>     What "idea" is contained in "Cindy's Torment"?  It's a
>>piece of violent erotica.  You can't argue with it because it
>>doesn't present any arguments; it just affects you by pressing
>>sexual buttons, which are not subject to rational thought.
>
>Would you care to provide some proof for this assertion or is
>it just an unctrollable emotional reaction not subject to rational
>thought.

     No.  (Er, I assume that was a question.)

>You know, the very first thing university's ought to teach undergrads
>is how frequently "common sense" leads to incorrect conclusions.

     Great idea.  Second thing should be spelling.

> Perhaps
>the second (just to anticipate the usual attempt at supporting the
>quoted argument above) ought to be the difference between correlations
>and causal relationships.

     Oh OK, spelling can be third.  But didn't you learn the
difference between correlation and causation in university?
I sure did.  No, come to think of it, I tell a lie.  I learned
it in highschool.

> The third might be some education on bullshit
>research by people with an axe to grind.

     Oh OK, spelling can be fourth.  But John, I would never ask
you to accept any research like that.  Now go read Malamuth and
Donnerstein and so on.

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Every \item command in item_list must have an optional argument." LaTeX pg.168


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

From caf-talk Caf Aug  2 00:23:53 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
From: hurd@fraser.sfu.ca (Peter L. Hurd)
Subject: Article 5--Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1992 00:57:11 GMT

jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) wr
ites :   [oops]

>(1) Is there erotic material that, if it were readily available,
>  would make some people more prone to commit acts of rape and
>  child sexual abuse?

alt.sex.stories would carry this stuff, and still does, alt.sex.bondage
was a discussion group that dealt with the technical how to, how not to,
how not to injure, or infect, how to get the most enjoyment out of, 
consensual sexual activities of a minority interest.  The "erotic" material
that most people would find objectionable are in groups still readily 
available there at sfu on nn. (I don't find most of the colliding body
net erotica to be a turn on, just to explain the scare quotes).
What was removed was a book judged by it's cover.  I posted semi-regularly 
on a.s.b., mostly to offer advice to those who asked for information about
body peircing.  This is the spirit of the vast majoriy of what went on
in a.s.b., advice on how to do what people want to do.  A.s.b. was by and
for those who enjoyed (from both angles, all angles) what they were discussing.
The aim was that everyone involved have the greatest time ever, and if
everyone wasn't enjoying themselves then they should all stop and go bowling,
or find a new hobby.  The whole point to a.s.b. was to make the giving of
consent, and the open questioning of "normal" power relations inherant
in sex appear in the foreground as something to step back and question.
Is the removal of these groups going to have a beneficial or deleterious
effect in the immediate future, damn right I think.  Aside from the larger
abstractions, I can tell you that people will try things, be it tying
up their consensual partner, or peircing their nipples.  Like abortion,
it will be done, the question is only how much information and safety
will be available to those who decide to do it.  The harmful effects of
cheap frat boy fantasy porn has not been avoided, it's still out there
in the bucket load, the harmful effects (the destruction of romance, and
the explicit ignoring of loaded power relations) that a.s.b. was all
about the challanging of, will be left there.  Don't shut people out of
information, the more information we have the wiser we become, a mind
pushed over the edge to rape is one that hasn't questioned the mainstream
views on sex, and one that was bent way out of balance to begin with.
	To make a clear debate point for you to consider, I propose that
the elimination of a.s.b. was an elimination of a group; comitted to the
dissemination of information with regards to a consensual activity, that
sought to avoid any damage to the psyche or body of it's practioners, that
activly sought to empower all the people who engaged in sex of a minority
interest style by acknowleging the wisdom and accepatbility of consenting
individuals exploring an alternative to the mainstream power abuse present
in the sexroles learned from such depraved and pornographic sources as
COSMOPOLITAN, GQ, FLAIR and whatever.  Conversely the attitudes that 
encourage the worst of mainstream sexual power assymmetries, abuse &c
are all cruising along as normal.  Thirdly that thought, not information is
what produces attitudes, you do not raise pacifist children by keeping them
away from cartoons, but if they are to deal construcively with conflict
they must realize how stupid those cartoons are.  I've read some very
good, thought provoking smut, dealing with responsability and weakness
and strength via the net, but in order to question myself with such things
I had to wade through a lot of cartoon sex, (I'm not saying it was worth it).

>     Read Donnerstein and Malamuth's studies, Zillman and
>Bryant's studies, and books like _Take Back the Night_ (which is
>anti-pornography) and _Men Confronting Pornography_ (which is
>not exclusively anti-pornography).  I defy anyone to still say,
>after reading such material, that there is *no* erotic material
>involving rape and sex with children which affects *anyone*
>adversely.

The adverse effect may be that the borderline porn of babies in makeup
advertizing, or the perfume ads with prepubescent kids, then strike the
individual as being deeply disturbing.  I won't defend such trash, but
I wish you to realize that a.s.b. was NOT about such things, and such
things are still on the net, and that a group explicity about consensual
activities was removed in the guise of dealing with such material.  To 
debate such a point WRT a.s.b. is a total straw man.

>(2) Is the risk (in terms of infringement of general human
>  rights) of censoring such material so high that we should
>  allow it to be available anyway?

	Is a group like a.s.b. to be removed because the activities
it discusses have bad pr.  Is it O.K. to censor someone because the
popular portayal of that person's beleifs are of something horrible.
You are asking whether, for instance, someone who is thinking of
putting a ring through their nipple, will have an avenue to information
about the propper care and cleaning, because someone else has called
it bondage, and a third person says that bondage means dragging children
off the street and tying them up and torturing them.  There are
lots of really gross and scary things that people do to each other, and
it really disturbs me that people feel it is alright to force their
will on someone else.  Dig that sentence?  Someone once said that
censorship is mental bondage, it's say that to say such a thing is to 
sully the name of something engaged in by caring consesual adults.
	Is the risk of allowing the particulars of how to have anal
intercourse safely and painlessly so high that such information should
be kept secret?  What information, what material, is really being
silenced here?  I think it is that of one of the most caring, loving,
sexually open minded commuity of minority interested malcontents.
You seem to think that child rapist propaganda has been silenced, it's
as here as it ever was.  What isn't is gay/lesbian/stright sexual
malcontents who aren't happy having the world tell them what is and
is not acceptable behaviour in their bedrooms, or what is and is not
acceptable accessories to use in their play.

>     In fact, I have no doubt that alt.sex.bondage and
>alt.sex.stories unwittingly serve such a purpose already, and
>that there are rapists and child molesters who read the stories
>and just ignore the discussions (too much of a turnoff).  The
>reinforcement of these people's tendencies, and the resulting
>real human misery, is too high a price to pay for some dogmatic
>ideal of absolute freedom of speech.

	How many people can't find mainstream propaganda in glossy
magazines, or on tv or in popsongs advocating a truely unhealthy
attitude.  But what has been silenced is a source of information 
pertaining directly to the theory and practice of giving pleasure
safely in a scary world.  The twisted minds have now triumphed by
silencing the discussion, while the cartoons continue endlessly.
Real human misery, is not being able to sexually please your partner(s)
in the way that they would like.  I'm sorry that is way to strong,
there is real horror being perpetrated by monsters in inhuman ways,
and I do not wish to sound like I am excusing date-rapists, rapists,
sexists, homophobes, or any of their ill ilk.  But why stifle attempts
to produce happiness in a severely misunderstood underground, when it
has no effect on the real villains?

>			*	*	*

>(3) Where do you draw the line?

>     The existence of censorship laws is not going to lead to
>Stalinist repression of ideas any more than the existence of
>traffic laws has led to Stalinist restrictions on movement.

       Wrong! it has just happened before your eyes.  The ideas just don't
happen to be yours so you may have a hard time seeing it.  But the
idea that one can transfer responsability to a lover by consenting to
have your ability to directly move towards satisfaction has just been
zapped.  What other ideas are gone with, I don't know, they might have
been ideas worth pondering, if only to reject them, but how will I
know?

>			*	*	*

>     Those are the main points.  The rest is just babble, and
Hve you not here dismissed a view out of hand?

>--Jamie.
>  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
>"Every \item command in item_list must have an optional argument." LaTeX pg.168
-- 
-- Pete Hurd, hurd@sfu.ca          |   Truth never set anyone free,          
Behavioural Ecology Research Group |   it is only doubt which will           
Dept.Biol.Sci., Simon Fraser Univ. |   bring mental emancipation.               
Burnaby B.C. V5A 1S6 Canada        |               -- Anton LaVey                      


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

From caf-talk Caf Jul 29 15:36:38 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: philip@SMU.StMarys.CA (Philip Howard (Computer Services))
Subject: Article 6--RE: "Computers graphic...", letter to the Globe
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:46:59 GMT

The following letter was faxed to the Globe today. Not 30min. later I got a 
call from Peter Moon, the reporter who wrote the article. He was still 
chuckling... He admitted, though, that the Internet is a hard concept to 
grasp (no ribald pun intended).





                                                  610-5681 Rhuland Street
                                                  Halifax, Nova Scotia
                                                  
     The Editor,
     The Globe & Mail
     Toronto, Ontario
     Fax: (416) 585-5085

     Dear Sir or Madam,

     The following response to your front page "expos" of the Internet is
     written in the style of a network article, or "post." On "the Net", quoted
     passages are preceded by the '>' symbol (inserted automatically by software
     when replying to a post). Puns or tongue-in-cheek remarks often end in a
     "smilie", a sideways happy-face symbol made up of keyboard characters; eg,
     :-). Critical remarks are known as "flames." Postings are usually far more
     casual than is common with written correspondence. Acronyms like IMHO (In
     My Humble Opinion) and BTW (By The Way) are used freely to the distress of
     those new to the system, the "newbies." Postings usually conclude with
     information about the poster. These signature lines, or "sigs", may include
     sarcastic disclaimers along the lines of "The opinions expressed are not
     necessarily those of my employer."

     (Note: For correct spacing, reproduce the following in a mono-spaced font
     like courier, 80 column page width.)

     ----------------------Cut Here-----------------------------------
     X-NEWS: husky1 can.globe&mail.sex: 50
     Relay-Version: VMS News - V6.0-3 14/03/90 VAX/VMS; site husky1.stmarys.ca
     Newsgroups: can.globe&mail.sex
     Subject: Computers graphic when it comes to porn
     From: phoward@husky1.stmarys.ca
     Date: 27 Jul 92 13:46:50 -0400
     Organization: St. Mary's University, Halifax, N.S., Canada
     Lines: 50

     In article<1992July20.frontpage@globe.to.ont>,"Computers graphic when it
     comes to porn", Moon@globe.to.ont<"Peter Moon"> writes:

     >Pornographic photographs and obscene stories... are available to
     >virtually anyone in Canada with a computer and a telephone link.

     Uh, well, nooo... unless one has purchased the network service, access is
     not *publicly* available, Peter... as you confess later in the article. But
     then that would not have grabbed your readers' ...uh... attention, right?

     >Canadian universities enter the computer system that includes the
     >controversial sex bulletin boards through Internet.

     Peter, I think you really missed the mark on this one. Of the almost 3,000
     *Usenet* (to be accurate) discussion groups with worldwide distribution,
     you mentioned the three or four sleazy ones. In fact, Usenet discussion
     groups or "netnews" is only one feature of this "network of networks."
     Electronic mail, the speedy transfer of vast data files, and Internet
     accessible library catalogs and databases make up a far greater portion of
     network traffic. The Internet is a tremendous knowledge resource and your
     article only covered the worst of it.

     It was as if you had visited a foreign land and spent your entire visit at
     the garbage dump! You overlooked the language and the culture. The Internet
     is becoming, to employ a common phrase, a "distinct society." Its ethos is
     people helping people, sharing information and computing resources, working
     together in a way that outsiders cannot fully appreciate. We are not the
     computer hackers of common lore. We come from all disciplines because every
     field of endeavour benefits from improved access to information.
     Future, faster networks like the Internet have been called "the critical
     infrastructure of information superhighways" by one supporter, American
     Vice Presidential candidate Sen. Albert Gore. IMHO the subject deserved
     fuller coverage than that very narrow article which could only have been
     meant to appeal the most prurient interests of your readers.

     BTW, these comments will have been available to tens of thousands of people
     by the time you get around to deciding whether or not to include them on
     the Letters to the Editor page. They will circle the globe in can.general
     and alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk :-)

     Please direct any flames to my email box since I am not a regular reader of
     can.sex.globe&mail... *wink* ;-)

     -----
     Philip M. Howard             | internet: phoward@husky1.stmarys.ca
     Technical Support Analyst    |    voice: (902) 420-5481
     Saint Mary's University      |      fax: (902) 420-5115
     Halifax, Nova Scotia         | "Maintaining regularity
     C A N A D A  B3H 3C3         |     without drugs or medication."



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

From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 18:00:55 1992
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,news.misc
Subject: Article 7--Re: Articles violatating newgroups charter
Date: 17 Jul 92 19:51:55 GMT

Written in article <1992Jul13.223839.10459@opencon.com>
 by news@opencon.com (News Admin):

: As a reader of newsgroups, and as a administrator, few newsgroup violate
: their Charter, for example soc.culture.indian, inclosed is the article.
: Is there a way news administrators, especially in the universities, admin
: to put up statements saying not to post any FLAMES, and if they see any
: to warn the students/users/employees,etc. of such behavior.

: I thought, that
: as educated (technical) people, on the net we would know better??

HAH!

: When a newsgroup is created it has a purpose, i.e., it's charter.  If people
: violate the charter, shouldn't something be done buy the "news" administrators,
: even though the "group" by itself is unadministrated.

Of course, you CAN do something about it.  You have every right, as the
administrator, representing the owner of the machine, to make certain
restrictions.  Having Freedom of Speech doesn't obligate anyone to Provide
the Soap Box.  But it won't do you a whole lot of good in the long run.

Issues of free speech aside, there's really little you can do about it,
except post occasional friendly reminders.

If people choose to ignore your reminders, what can you do?  If, as the
administrator, you manage to "kill-file" anything coming into or going
out of your site, folks will only manage to find other sites, or
sneakier ways of slipping past your kill file algorithms.  It's more
trouble, but if they really want to spew hatred, they'll find a way.

You might as well try to out-law cross-burning on the private property
of burner.  Sure it's disgusting, but unless you want to fine him for
air pollution, there's nothing you can do.  So long as he's not burning
the cross on someone else's property, it's legal, as it should be.

If you pass a law against it, or try to force it to stop, they'll only 
put up a full-size picture of a burning cross.  Not quite the same
impact, but it gets the point across.  Forbidding that, they'll send
hate-mail to select groups through the postal service.  In other words,
you can't stop them from hating somebody by stopping them from express- 
ing their hatred.  They'll simply find other, possibly more insidious,
methods of expression.

My point is that there really nothing you can or should do about it.
Just post reminders now and then, send e-mail now and then, and hope for
the best.

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, batteries not included, void where prohibited.
The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility.  
And vice versa.
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =


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

From caf-talk Caf Jul 28 15:13:59 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 8--[Cu Digest] CPSR Recommends NREN Privacy
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:13:46 GMT


[Forwarded from the Computer Underground Digest]

>Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:25:57 EDT
>From: Dave Banisar <banisar@WASHOFC.CPSR.ORG>
>Subject: File 10--CPSR Recommends NREN Privacy

               CPSR Recommends NREN Privacy Principles
                            (PRESS RELEASE)

WASHINGTON, DC -- Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
(CPSR), a national public interest organization, has recommended
privacy guidelines for the nation's computer network.

At a hearing this week before the National Commission on Library and
Information Science, CPSR recommended a privacy policy for the
National Research and Education Network or "NREN."  Marc Rotenberg,
Washington Director of CPSR, said "We hope this proposal will get the
ball rolling.  The failure to develop a good policy for the computer
network could be very costly in the long term."

The National Commission is currently reviewing comments for a report
to the Office of Science and Technology Policy on the future of the
NREN.

Mr. Rotenberg said there are several reasons that the Commission
should address the privacy issue.  "First, the move toward
commercialization of the network is certain to exacerbate privacy
concerns.  Second, current law does not do a very good job of
protecting computer messages.  Third, technology won't solve all the
problems."

The CPSR principles are (1) protect confidentiality, (2) identify
privacy implications in new services, (3) limit collection of personal
data, (4) restrict transfer of personal information,(5) do not charge
for routine privacy protection, (6) incorporate technical safeguards,
(7) develop appropriate security policies, and (8) create an
enforcement mechanism.

Professor David Flaherty, an expert in telecommunications privacy law,
said "The CPSR principles fit squarely in the middle of similar
efforts in other countries to promote network services.  This looks
like a good approach."

Evan Hendricks, the chair of the United States Privacy Council and
editor of Privacy Times, said that the United States is "behind the
curve" on privacy and needs to catch up with other countries who are
already developing privacy guidelines.  "The Europeans are racing
forward, and we've been left with dust on our face."

The CPSR privacy guidelines are similar to a set of principles
developed almost 20 years ago called The Code of Fair Information
practices.  The Code was developed by a government task force that
included policy makers, privacy experts, and computer scientists.  The
Code later became the basis of the United States Privacy Act.

Dr. Ronni Rosenberg, who has studied the role of computer scientists
in public policy, said that  "Computer professionals have an important
role to play in privacy policy. The CPSR privacy guidelines are
another example of how scientists can contribute to public policy."

CPSR is a membership organization of 2500 professionals in the
technology field. For more information about the Privacy Policies and
how to join CPSR, contact CPSR, P.O. Box 717, Palo Alto CA 94302.
415/322-3778 (tel) and 415/322-3798 (fax).  Email at
cpsr@csli.stanford.edu.



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

From caf-talk Caf Jul 30 09:53:19 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: Article 9--Re: User services 
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:47:21 GMT

kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes:
>
>[...]
>>Funny you should mention that. We just drafted a rough policy file,
>>adn one thing we put in is that providing public services is the
>>responsibility of the administrators and must be approved by us.
>[...]
>
>What criteria will you use? You will likely be pressured to use your
>new authority to censor your users.

I'm adding a similar paragraph to our policy (which, by the way, is
*still* generating email comments; thanks, folks!).  My paragraph
will apply to admins and users alike, with wording like this:

     Publicly accessible network resources will be installed
     ONLY by ECC staff.  Such resources must be directly re-
     lated to the ECC mission, engineering education.
     
   * The installation of recreational network resources, such as 
   * MUD, Netrek, or IRC clients/servers, are explicitly prohibited
   * UNLESS these programs include use restrictions based on time of
   * day and number of users.  The installation of these resources
   * may only be performed by ECC staff; however, users are welcome
   * to submit programs for inclusion in this category.  

24-hour access will only be given to those network resources which
directly relate to our mission.  Anonymous FTP would be an example
of such a service; we don't have anything in our FTP archive that
isn't related to the work of the College.

The paragraph marked with "*" has been proposed as a compromise.  If
it's 11:30 pm and there are only 5 people logged in, I don't think I'll
have a problem with MUD/IRC/whatever usage.  During working hours, which
I'll probably set as 0800-2200, I have to preserve the system for the
(rather heavy) academic users.

I'm writing the code to implement these restrictions; the algorithm looks
something like this:

	if(time > 2200 and time < 0700)  /* limit subject to tuning */
		AND if(users logged in < 30)  /* subject to tuning */
			AND if(recreational users < 15) /* subject to tuning */
				allow access to game/MUD/IRC/whatever

I would place all recreational resources under the umbrella of a "play"
command; users might give the command "play irc" or "play nethack".  This
scheme allows me to easily extract recreational users from the system 
process lists.

If the system turns out to be over- or under-utilized, I'll modify the
"30 users" and "15 recreational users" limits accordingly.  These limits
will probably "float" with the academic year; as finals week approaches,
the academic use goes through the roof (all-nighters for final projects,
et cetera).

I believe that this approach will give us the best of both worlds; the
recreational users can still have fun, but they cannot do so at the ex-
pense of the academic users (unless the academic users come in at 2 am).

I'm just happy that I finally have a system that can bear the recreational
AND academic users; it's a luxury I have not enjoyed in the past.

Comments?


-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.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