From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: right to have .plan
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:51:45 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org's message of 11 Nov 92 18:09:10 -0400

In article <19721.2B06AECF@puddle.fidonet.org>
Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Zhahai Stewart) writes:
> >recently i recieve a complaint about my .plan file
> >which contains quote from the book of isaiah.  one
> >user in my system accuses, "[i was] protelyzing over
> >system."  i consider this as a challege in my freedom
> >of expressing my thought and freedom of religion.
>
> CB> A complaint about your .plan?  seems kinda far fetched to me.
>
> Overall, I tend to agree.  But is there a principle that a .plan
> can hold anything?  Obscenity, other folk's credit card numbers,
> racial hate propoganda, material impugning the integrity of others
> (such as might be slanderous or libelous if published)?
>...
> That is, how "private" versus "public" is a .plan file?  In the
> actual environment, is it in effect a type of distributed 
> publishing?  Since its entire purpose is to be fetched by 
> strangers without specific invitation, I think a good case could
> be made that its not in the same category as just having a file
> on one's disk which is accessible.

I think a good analogy might be that of television (or any other)
advertising.  One tunes into a TV show to watch the show, not the ads,
but one gets the ads anyway.  That doesn't mean the advertisers aren't
responsible for propagating "information" that falls into the
categories you named above.  Likewise, someone fingers an account to
get name/last-login/etc. information, not to read a .plan file, but he
still gets the .plan file and it doesn't excuse an account holder from
being responsible about what he puts in there.

That said, I find a policy against the expression of categories of
ideas, even in a .plan file, repugnant.  Yes, the bytes on that disk
belong to the owner of the machine.  Yes, said owner has the right to
restrict its use in any way he sees fit (including suppression, for
example, of religious propaganda), as long as the "owner" is not a
public institution, supported by tax dollars.  It's still a childish
and oppressive policy.

Ironically enough, were the original poster at a public institution,
his .plan file could be construed as a violation of the "separation"
of church and state.  Absurd, yes, but the only interpretation
consistent with Supreme Court policy on the subject.

Everything else Zhahai said is quite reasonable and proper and it
would be a better world if all sysadmins (indeed, if everybody) had
such tolerant, laissez-faire attitudes toward behavior in this regard.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~