From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:09:45 1995 From: kadie@sal (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: [alt.censorship] Re: Censorship at schools Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:09:39 GMT Message-ID: <3k1u8j$kpd@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> [A repost - Carl] From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:09:45 1995 From: johnson@ripco.com (MKJohnson) Subject: Re: Censorship at schools Message-ID: <D596K9.28C@rci.ripco.com> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 01:52:56 GMT We don't censor our students internet access, but I do get a copy at the end of each period which gives me a rundown on what they did do while on the net.. J Baillie (92003623@white.lambton.on.ca) wrote: : Well going to another school really isn't an option... What do you think I : am made of money or something. : Jamie -- \\\\/// `(o o)` "...and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set \_/ you free..." --ooO -(_)--Ooo---------------------------------------------------------- ----- ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = = URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/> From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:10:22 1995 From: kadie@sal (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: [alt.censorship] Censorship at schools... Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:10:16 GMT Message-ID: <3k1u9o$kr4@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> [A repost - Carl] From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:10:22 1995 Newsgroups: alt.censorship Subject: Censorship at schools... Date: 12 Mar 1995 23:43:10 -0500 Message-ID: <3k0igu$v7@white.lambton.on.ca> Ok well what exactly do you expect a student to do... I am one of very few that will actually speak up against our admin. Most of then are afraid to speak up because of retailiation. The system admin could and will lock out our accounts.. I have had mine locked out once already but that won't stop me. The system admin came up with this lame excuse that I was hacking the system or something, which is not true. Anyways I got back on about a week latter. There are only a few other people that are willing to say something to him about this topic. And when I try to talk to him he says "That his opinion is the only one that counts" he refuses to listen to the students views of the issue!. Jamie ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = = URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/> From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:10:37 1995 From: kadie@sal (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: [soc.college.grad, et al.] Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:10:30 GMT Message-ID: <3k1ua6$ks2@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> [A repost - Carl] From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:10:37 1995 Newsgroups: soc.college.grad,alt.censorship,memphis.general,tn.general Subject: Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis Date: 11 Mar 1995 09:10:25 -0500 Message-ID: <3jsb0h$rle@anshar.shadow.net> : With all the rhetoric aside, these guys knew they shouldn't have been : doing what they did, and they did it anyway. These are _university_ : students. If they can't be a little more responsible, maybe they do : need "a mommy" to censor their posts. All that aside why don't they go to the rival tv stations in the area and see if anyone would be interest in running a story on how big bad tv station is for censorship? As far as their own internet gate way is concern, if would be fun to pick up a commerce account and take the university to small claim court for the amount of the fee on the theory that there is a implied contract with the students to provide an internet gateway as part of the tution fee. Oh include the tv station in the small claim suite on the theory that their action interfere with a business relationship between the students and the college. Made sure all the local papers and other tv station is inform about your suite. In other word have fun with the situation and annoy the powers to be at the same time. Regards, Bill ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = = URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/> From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:11:11 1995 From: kadie@sal (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.] Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:10:57 GMT Message-ID: <3k1ub1$ktj@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> [A repost - Carl] From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:11:11 1995 Newsgroups: alt.censorship,memphis.general,tn.general Subject: Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis Message-ID: <1995Mar11.100019.39450@msuvx1.memphis.edu> Date: 11 Mar 95 10:00:19 -0500 In article <794873617snz@crecon.demon.co.uk>, Octobersdad@crecon.demon.co.uk ("T. Bruce Tober") writes: > In article <1995Mar9.125442.39209@msuvx1.memphis.edu> > mddallara@msuvx1.memphis.edu > "Mark Dallara, Biomedical Engineering" writes: > >> >> 1. Why weren't the two students given warnings before such disciplinary action >> was taken? We do not have reminders about the Student Conduct Code, in fact >> I don't remember anything about it when I received my vax account. The >> minimum courtesy the administration could extend is to talk to the students >> before shutting them down. > > Fair enuf question. >> >> 2. Obscenity laws are subject to local standards. How the fuck can they > > Yep and the student in question posted the articles in question to > the very local umem.* hierarchy you said. Whether it's on the net or > not, doubtful anyone other than umem students, faculty, alum and some > locals read those groups. A court would probably find that > constitutes a local community standard. Do you think the university would have reacted differently if the posting had been to memphis.general or tn.general, which are both received outside of the school? How about if something was crossposted from umem.general to soc.college? It should NOT be considered a local community standard just because of the distribution of those newsgroups. I want to reiterate that I don't think obscenity laws should apply in any sense to a medium which is NOT readily accessible to children, and is NOT confined to one community or even one nation. Any parents who give their children 'Net access should be responsible for policing their own kids' actions. The 'Net cannot, should not, and will not be made childproof. >> >> 3. Why should WREG-TV have that kind of weight with the campus administration? >> Why the hell would they get that upset over some vulgar email? ARe they THAT >> insecure? Would they have had such a sphincter fit if Hooper had sent them > > I think most adults, especially with high visibility int he community > and in the public eye as tv people tend to be, would be rather upset > that someone forge messages on their account. More, than that, they > would probably be outraged and very likely take the forger to court > on that alone, but considering the posts were rather abusive in tone > and language, I think you said, they would be that much more likely > to do so. The students in question are NOT accused of forging messages on anyone's account. The whole message was faked, and no one knows by whom. Coleman doesn't even have a Umem account. > Also I suspect the tv station probably has some very important > financial ties to the college. BINGO. Add in the fact that the school is almost neurotic lately in its obsession with P.R. >> a snailmail through the U.S. postal system instead of an email? >> >> 4. Does the administration even realize how much 'obscene' material is >> available to the poor, weak, impressionable college students on the >> global newsgroups? I doubt it, they probably wouldn't know a uudecoder if >> it jumped up and sodomized them. > > You started out with what sounded a legitimate, well thought out, > reasonable query. Now you're resorting to rant. I'm not at all sure > you're for real or just flexing your young muscles, but it's not > necessary and I personally think you haven't a leg to stand on in > your anger. I'm engaging in sarcasm because I wish to do so and it strikes me as humorous. I make it a point to include profane language or an obscene reference whenever discussing censorship. I also wanted to point out that the vast majority of administrators who set policy for Computer Services are nearly 'Net-illiterate, have no idea what 'Net users consider appropriate or inappropriate, and probably won't bother to find these things out, even now. I don't care if it's necessary, it suits my purposes, is good for a laugh, and paints an image that will make the overly sensitive readers twitch. My basic points are, and have been... 1. Due process has been a joke in this situation 2. Information should belong to the author, not the infrastructure. 3. Standards vary from newsgroup to newsgroup. 4. Standards may vary from community to community, but the net community is global, therefore standards should be left up to the newsgroups, the IRC channels, the Web page authors, etc. Sig seen on the 'net from an AT&T employee: "Ever feel like you're being watched? You will..." -- Mark Dallara : Whenever someone asks me to define love, Graduate Student : I usually think for a minute, then I spin Biomedical Engineering : around and pin the guy's arm behind his University of Memphis : back. NOW who's asking the questions? * Florida '93, Memphis '95 * : - "Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handey -- ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = = URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/> From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:12:07 1995 From: kadie@sal (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: [soc.college.grad, et al.] Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:11:41 GMT Message-ID: <3k1ucd$l1h@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> [A repost - Carl] From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:12:07 1995 Newsgroups: soc.college.grad,alt.censorship,memphis.general,tn.general Subject: Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis Date: 11 Mar 1995 06:12:26 GMT Message-ID: <3jrf0a$oj4@giga.bga.com> Steven Cogorno (cogorno@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : You bet it gives them the right to censor communications. It is THEIR : computer, and they own all of the information stored on its disks. : The university is responsible for all messages on or that leave : its system. Only common carriers (which no university is) are not : held responsible for the action of its customers/users. 1. Once again that pesky First Amendment keeps getting in the way of a university being able to do their job! They have no right to censor any of the communications. 2. The university owns none of the information stored on the disks. That information belongs to the copyright holders of the e-mail, messages, and other files that are archived on the university computers. Providing access and owning are two separate items. 3. Academic freedom provides a bullet-proof shield of liability for these types of issues. The irony over CMU, Univ of Pitt, and other incidences, is that universities are the *LEAST* likely to be held responsible for the actions of their students. : With all the rhetoric aside, these guys knew they shouldn't have been : doing what they did, and they did it anyway. These are _university_ : students. If they can't be a little more responsible, maybe they do : need "a mommy" to censor their posts. Wait a minute. They broke no laws. None whatsoever. All they have done is engage in activities that embarassed university school officials. Is that sufficient? -- David Smith * Calendar of way cool e-things: bladex@bga.com * Mar 15-17 SXSW Multimedia President, EFF-Austin * Mon Mar 20th EFF-Austin General Meeting Board of Directors, CTCLU * April 1-2 Robofest ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = = URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/> From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:12:19 1995 From: kadie@sal (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: [soc.college.grad, et al.] Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:12:00 GMT Message-ID: <3k1ud0$l34@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> [A repost - Carl] From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:12:19 1995 Newsgroups: soc.college.grad,alt.censorship,memphis.general,tn.general Subject: Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis Date: 12 Mar 1995 07:59:37 -0800 Message-ID: <3jv5p9$ltp@crl2.crl.com> In article <3jnv1s$n3a@panix.com>, o0l1@panix.com (Alan J. Munn) said: > The director of the computer center of the graduate school of the City > University of New York (Joan Sheridan), justifying her action by an > alleged rule against obscenity, shut down a soft-core pornography WWW > home page (that did not have any pornography of its own, but had > hyperlinks to soft-core pornography already on the Web), and punished > its author. She explained that the page had damaged the graduate > school's reputation. The reaction (at the graduate school's computer > center) seems different from the reaction at Memphis. At the computer > center, the staff applauds her common sense and respect for academic > freedom. If you are one of the people whose esteem for the graduate > school declined because of the home page, you may wish to reevaluate > the graduate school now that the home page is gone. This is a joke, right? My respect for a school is supposed to go _down_ when it allows a student to maintain a home page that contains accurate information, and _up_ when the school deletes that page? -- William December Starr <wdstarr@crl.com> ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = = URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/> From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:12:28 1995 From: kadie@sal (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: [soc.college.grad, et al.] Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:12:16 GMT Message-ID: <3k1udg$l46@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> [A repost - Carl] From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:12:28 1995 Newsgroups: soc.college.grad,alt.censorship,memphis.general,tn.general Subject: Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis Date: 12 Mar 1995 06:17:45 GMT Message-ID: <3ju3m9$vaj@isdnlin.mtsu.edu> Steven Cogorno (cogorno@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : In article <1995Mar9.230549.39277@msuvx1.memphis.edu> mddallara@msuvx1.memphis.edu writes: : With all the rhetoric aside, these guys knew they shouldn't have been : doing what they did, and they did it anyway. These are _university_ : students. If they can't be a little more responsible, maybe they do : need "a mommy" to censor their posts. Who is to decide what is appropriate? Bible thumpers? There is a simple way to fix this. Like on most parts of the Internet, if you do not like it do not read/go_there. If that does not work, then flame them personally in e-mail. Mr. Winc. ( just put these ppl in your kill file and they will never be there again ) ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = = URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/> From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:14:58 1995 From: kadie@sal (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: [alt.censorship] Colleges That Censors. Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:14:28 GMT Message-ID: <3k1uhk$ld2@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> [A repost - Carl] From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:14:58 1995 Newsgroups: alt.censorship Subject: Colleges That Censors. Date: 11 Mar 1995 20:06:25 -0500 Message-ID: <3jtheh$hfi@white.lambton.on.ca> REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USE OF LAMBTON COLLEGE COMPUTING FACILITIES Intended Use of Resources Computing and communications facilities of Lambton College, including the on-campus and off-campus mechanisms by which they are interconnected and accessed, exist to support the instructional, administrative and research tasks that exist for the use of each of these facilities. Computer time is a valuable college resource which must be shared by the entire College community. Misuse or wasteful use of this resource is subject to discipline according to college policy. It is recognized that most users are responsible and use the facilities as they are intended. However, irresponsible actions by a few may cause difficulties for the majority. Definitions of Terms Facility: Any form of computing system, communication system (data, voice, image), premises housing such a system, premises housing devices for accessing and using such a system. User: An individual authorized to use all or part of the facility. Userid: The name assigned to an authorized user. (For students, this name is their student number.) Authorized Use: Use of a computing facility solely for educational purposes directly related to a program or course in which students are enrolled. Fair Warning Concept The users of a facility have the right to fair warning concerning these regulations. Either of the following constitutes such fair warning: 1. When "logging on" to a computer system a message may be displayed on the screen notifying the user that by continuing he/she is accepting the regulations. 2. A copy of the regulations will be posted in all computer rooms. User Responsibilities: 1. Maintain confidentiality of passwords. 2. Use the facility in a reasonable and responsible manner. 3. Be aware of limitations on access to computer labs. Students may not enter a lab which has a class scheduled in it, without the permission of the person teaching the lab. 4. Report any abuse of the facility to the Computer Services Department as soon as possible. 5. Report any hardware or software problems to the Computer Services Department as soon as possible. A "Computer Problem Report" should be completed, giving full particulars of the problem. (Copies of this form are in all computer labs.) 6. Must not use illegal copies of computer software on College computer equipment. 7. User's must be prepared to provide "current College identification" on request. Misuse of Computing Resources The production of non-course-related materials such as banners, signs, sports polls and games which consume the College computer resources or occupies terminal seats is not allowed. Deliberately wasteful practices are not allowed, such as: - unnecessarily large printer listings - unnecessary compilations of programs - creation and retention of unnecessary files - unauthorized reservation of terminals or computers The College has legal licenses for all software installed on equipment. This software is for use on college equipment only. Making copies of any college software is illegal. Users caught taking copies will be subject to college disciplinary action. Purpose of Facility Use System resources are not for commercial use or personal gain. Users' computer accounts are for College-related activities only. Privacy of Computer Files A user must remain within the bounds of his/her own account. Going beyond these bounds includes perusal of system files and accounts, other users' accounts and using other individuals' passwords. Users must not access or copy files and directories belonging to other users or to Lambton College unless they have prior written authorization to do so. Files and programs administered by the College Computer Centre may not be taken to any other computer sites without the written permission of the Computer Services Department. Respect for System Security Stay within the bounds of the system security. Deliberate attempts to bypass system security, tampering, malicious damage and actions detrimental to other system users are not permitted. Any action or attempt by any individual to subvert or disrupt the intended functioning of any facility is prohibited. No person or persons shall by any wilful or deliberate act, jeopardize the integrity of the computing equipment, its systems programs or other stored information. Security Related Procedures Produce valid College identification (student or staff card) upon request. Immediately report suspected unauthorized use of your account to Computer Services Department. Immediately report hardware problems to Computer Services Department. Exercise appropriate measures to maintain the confidentiality of confidential information acquired through computer access. Every person authorized to use computing resources shall be expected to treat as privileged, any information not provided or generated by him/herself which may become available to him/her through his/her use of computing resources; he/she shall not copy, modify, disseminate or use any part of it without permission of the appropriate person or body. Users must not use the facility to create or transmit information that is obscene, threatening or harassing. Users are expected to adhere to the requests of College monitors who oversee facilities. For safety reasons, children who are not registered as students must be accompanied by an adult and are not allowed to touch any of the computer equipment, nor are they allowed to roam freely about the facility. Users accompanied by children are expected to adhere to these requests. The consumption of food or drink in the facility is prohibited. Lack of system protection to a facility does not constitute permission to use it. Users must not attempt unauthorized access to computer installations outside of Lambton College using Lambton College's computers communications facilities. Users must identify their computer work with their own names. Discipline Any violation of these regulations will be disciplined in accordance with existing College Policy. ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = = URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/> From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:15:34 1995 From: kadie@sal (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: [alt.censorship] Colleges That Censors. Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:15:21 GMT Message-ID: <3k1uj9$lfp@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> [A repost - Carl] From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:15:34 1995 Newsgroups: alt.censorship Subject: Colleges That Censors. Date: 11 Mar 1995 20:07:46 -0500 Message-ID: <3jthh2$hjo@white.lambton.on.ca> Subject: Colleges That Censors. Newsgroups: alt.censorship Summary: Keywords: This message was written to me by Bill Smith (w.smith@ix.netcom.com) and I am reposting the message the usenet. My response will follow in the next message. Which, if any, of these regulations do you see as "silly." Most of them sound perfectly reasonable to me. I do not see anything silly or censorious in an educational institution attempting to restrict use of its computers to educational purposes, or for the institution to define what it will consider to be "educational purposes." It's true, a too narrow definition of "education purposes" could lead to some silliness, but I don't see that in the regulations you posted. ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = = URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/> From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:15:54 1995 From: kadie@sal (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: [alt.censorship] Colleges That Censors. Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:15:33 GMT Message-ID: <3k1ujl$lgd@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> [A repost - Carl] From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:15:54 1995 Newsgroups: alt.censorship Subject: Colleges That Censors. Date: 11 Mar 1995 20:10:21 -0500 Message-ID: <3jthlt$hmo@white.lambton.on.ca> On Sat, 11 Mar 1995, Bill Smith wrote: > You wrote: > > > > > > > REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USE OF > > LAMBTON COLLEGE COMPUTING FACILITIES > Which, if any, of these regulations do you see as "silly." Most of them > sound perfectly reasonable to me. I do not see anything silly or > censorious in an educational institution attempting to restrict use of > its computers to educational purposes, or for the institution to define > what it will consider to be "educational purposes." > > It's true, a too narrow definition of "education purposes" could lead to > some silliness, but I don't see that in the regulations you posted. Well it really isn't the rules them selves that are silly. It is the way that they are twisting the rules to meet there needs and how they are setting a double standard, One for the teachers and one for the students.. The only reason why is is being done is because they are finding that there computer is no longer adquate to meet the growing need of the internet users.. There is nothing wrong with what we are doing.. We are not doing anything illegal we are just inter-acting with other people on various chatlines, and other mud's, moo's, mushes ect. The teachers are allowed to use the system for there own personal needs but yet the students are not.. NOW THAT IS CENSORSHIP!. Wake up will you!.. Just because you are on a site that doesn't censor that doesn't mean it doesn't happen out here.. I am really ticked off about how the students get treated here compared to the teachers!. Jamie ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = = URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/> From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:21:01 1995 Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,can.general,mb.general,can.infohighway,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.culture.canad From: mshields@bull.ca (mshields) Subject: Re: Canada's Cyberspace - Wild West or Prudish Prairies ? Message-ID: <1995Mar13.171507.12001@bullns.on01.bull.ca> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 17:15:07 GMT In article <3jg5th$8mg@insight.dcss.mcmaster.ca>, djones@insight.mcmaster.ca (David Jones) says: [some deleted] > >[repost from efc-talk] > > Wild West or Prudish Prairies? > >Advocates of free speech may cringe at the chill that seems to be growing >in Winnipeg. Canada's wild west is looking pretty prudish these days. > >Recently, Mr. Pagtakhan, MP for Winnipeg-North, introduced a private >members motion in Parliament calling for some limits to be placed >on what can be communicated through computer networks. [1] > >In a move that seems related to this sentiment, an internet service provider >called "Magic Online Services" (http://www.magic.mb.ca) has recently dropped >about 20 newsgroups from their Usenet service. Most of the newsgroups were >from the "alt.sex.*" hierarchy. > >The decision to censor was made following conversations between Magic staff >and the RCMP. Apparently the RCMP advised that there were some legal >concerns about some of the articles in some of the "sex" newsgroups. >Whatever was said, it was enough to prompt the removal of several newsgroups. > [more deleted] Yet another dreary example of how this is an issue about POWER, not "legal concerns" or anything else. The truth is, those who currently have control over the means of communication (e.g. the government, pro-censorship lobby groups, Ted Rogers, the TV networks, spy agencies and the phone companies) are terrified of the Internet: for the first time, ordinary people have a means of communication that (so far at least) they can't completely censor or control. To a spy, or a RCMP bureaucrat, or the Legion for Decency, this is a profoundly disturbing concept, since it in effect transfers power from them to ordinary Internet users. You can bet that these people aren't going to give up control, and power, without a fight; the recent developments in Manitoba, the Thomas case in Tennessee, the Clipper Chip and U.S. Senate bill S.314 are all examples of the power elite trying desperately to put a stop to citizen and consumer control over the means of communication. These people aren't stupid- they know that their ability to keep control over society rests upon their ability to suppress alternative points of view, particularly sexual and political subcultures, while maintaining the fiction of "freedom of speech" (for anyone who can afford a TV station, that is). They know what their interests are, and they know that they're the opposite of the interests of the average Internet user. Let's keep that in mind when we hear statements by folks such as Mr. Pagtakhan. M.Shields mshields@bull.ca From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 14:54:04 1995 From: kadie@sal (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship Subject: [alt.wired] Jake Baker Panel (Mackinnon) transcript available Date: 13 Mar 1995 19:36:28 GMT Message-ID: <3k26rs$bs2@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> [A repost - Carl] From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 14:54:04 1995 Newsgroups: alt.wired Subject: Jake Baker Panel (Mackinnon) transcript available Date: 11 Mar 1995 08:33:06 GMT Message-ID: <3jrn82$5l6@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> The Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review held a panel (to an over-full auditorium) on Thursday night with Catharine Mackinnon, Barry Steinhardt, Scott Charney, and others on the forefront of the Internet and the First Amendment. The panel was called "Beyond Jake Baker--Policing the Internet". Some very interesting things were said, and new light was shed on the Baker case. The transcript of the panel is now available at http://www.umich.edu/~umlaw/mttlr.html -- ===================================================================== Andrew P. Boer University of Michigan Law School (2L) MTTLR Http://www.umich.edu/~aboer/ Aboer@umich.edu ==================================================================== ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = = URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/> From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 21:14:11 1995 From: fixyourpc@aol.com (FIXYOURPC) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: acad conversion Date: 13 Mar 1995 21:04:39 -0500 Message-ID: <3k2tjn$fo3@newsbf02.news.aol.com> I'm looking for anyone who has information on converting a HP-SCANJET output to a acad format. what formats are convertible and what software do I need. e-mail me at dspooner@clark.net or FIXYOURPC@aol.com From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 08:25:07 1995 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: John@longevb.demon.co.uk (John de Rivaz) Subject: Re: CREATIONISM REVISITED Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 13:07:12 +0000 Message-ID: <249125451wnr@longevb.demon.co.uk> The answer to your question is because some religious people like to use the force of law and government to impose their views. That is the real freedom issue. My postings are designed to show that such force cannot ultimately work, just as the Roman Empire couldn't use similar force to *suppress* Christianity. Chaos theory shows that government doesn't work for sound scientific reasons. Some people say that the Communists, who payed great attention to science and logic, gave up when they realised this. reference: Chance and Chaos by David Ruelle, Princetown University, ISBN 0-691-02100-7 In article: <1995Mar8.123653.43312@orion.bsuvc.bsu.edu> 00hfstahlke@bsuvc.bsu.edu (Herb Stahlke) writes: > In article <474011672wnr@longevb.demon.co.uk>, John@longevb.demon.co.uk (John de Rivaz) writes: > > Magnify the Mandelbrot set a few hundred times, and look at the complexity. > > Apply the same reasoning to them. > > > > This is not a flame--just idle curiousity. Why is this discussion > going on on this newsgroup? > > Herb > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > + Herbert Stahlke, Ph.D. || Email: 00HFSTAHLKE@BSU.EDU + > + Associate Director || or HSTAHLKE@BSU.EDU + > + University Computing Services || + > + Professor of English || Phone: 317-285-1843 + > + Ball State University || Fax: 317-285-1797 + > + Muncie, IN 47306 || + > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > -- Sincerely, **************************************** * Publisher of Longevity Report * John de Rivaz * Fractal Report * * details on request * **************************************** **** What is the point of life if it ends in death? **** From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 11:37:48 1995 From: kender@esu.edu (Daniel Garcia) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: stopping the spread of electronic pron? Date: 14 Mar 1995 11:37:47 -0500 Message-ID: <9503141640.AA09239@babbage.esu.edu.795199065> I have recently become aware of my state senate making inquiries as to what our state system of schools is doing to stop the 'spread' of electronic pornography. I have already resonded to them with a technical argument about the infeasability of trying to screen everything that comes in via news, ftp, email, etc... for porn. Now, I am lookig for other arguments as well, legal arguments, cases where schools have tried and lost in court (or won, i don need to present all sides here, er do need :), policies of other schools, etc... I looked on the caf archive at eff briefly, but still wasn't terribly sre on things. Note that for the record, I feel e-porn to be a masive waste of bandwidth, but i worry about what door's are opened if a precedent gets set herer (i.e. well, first amendment doesn't apply to porn, opens the door for first amedment doesn't apply to political views, or even worse, the first amendmen doesn't apply *shudder*). THanks in advance for any pointers you can offer. Daniel Garcia, -- ___________________________________________________________________________ /Daniel Garcia/Soon to be PhD Student/Virtual Environments /kender@esu.edu / /Linux Hacker/C Programmer for Hire /#include <disclaimer>/The Answer's 42/| ,-------------+----------------------+---------------------+-------------- + / |This sig was randomly generated for your viewing and reading pleasure.... |/ `------------------------http://www.esu.edu/~kender------------------------' From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 12:44:20 1995 From: mankind@rain.org () Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: Computer Bounty Hunter! Date: 14 Mar 1995 17:33:44 GMT Message-ID: <3k4k1o$l4o@news.rain.org> Feeling encumbered, I read the Logbook of a Computer Bounty Hunter. He explains the techniques available to guarantee individual rights. Available on network386@aol.com. Check it out -- Mankind@Rain.org From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 13:44:54 1995 From: kadie@sal (Fwd:) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] JANET censorship Date: 14 Mar 1995 18:41:26 GMT Message-ID: <3k4o0m$491@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> [A repost - Carl] From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 13:44:54 1995 Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: JANET censorship Date: 14 Mar 1995 17:07:18 GMT Message-ID: <3k4ig6$han@macondo.dmu.ac.uk> I'm not sure if this is exactly the correct group. Does anyone know who to get in touch with regarding the censorship of usenet by JANET as it enters the UK. I would like a good excuse from them as i can see no reason why they are limiting our access and censoring newsgroups and threads. eg. alt.sex is completely blocked and i'm not sure if this is by janet or whoever feeds our main site. I mean, we are all at least 18 years old here, so what are they "protecting" us from? There are loads of other restricted threads and i would just like to know why thats all. Ta. Stu. H. ================= end of repost ================== -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = = URL: <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/> From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 16:02:57 1995 From: ajl@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE (Arne J. Ludwig) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: Is this harassment? Date: 14 Mar 1995 20:46:38 GMT Message-ID: <3k4vbe$rna@news.duke.edu> I know this group is not completely appropriate for my question, but it may be of interest to you anyway. On Friday I sent a little note to a coworker where I asked if she wanted to have sex with me. It was put in a humorous way and (for a mature human being) there should have been no problem to simply say "no" to settle the matter. The note was intended to remove the tension between us and "break the ice". Certainly this note was in bad taste and inappropriate especially here in America (I've used that note without adverse effects in another country before), where sexual harassment is a sensitive issue. I wasn't completely aware of this cultural difference at the time. The woman reacted very unexpectedly, so I immediately apologized to her and intend to write a formal letter of apology. (She left to California for the spring break.) However, the woman filed a formal complaint and the response from my supervisor was to fire me (effective immediately). He said that I could try to argue with the Chairman of the Department but added that it would probably be of no use. I think the severity of this incident does in no way warrant the reaction and I do intend to fight the decision. I'd appreciate any comments from the net community. Arne From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 17:02:26 1995 From: feld@cc.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: Re: acad conversion Date: 14 Mar 1995 21:23:31 GMT Message-ID: <3k51gj$c7a@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca> In article <3k2tjn$fo3@newsbf02.news.aol.com> fixyourpc@aol.com (FIXYOURPC) writes: >I'm looking for anyone who has information on converting a HP-SCANJET >output to a acad format. what formats are convertible and what software >do I need. > >e-mail me at dspooner@clark.net or FIXYOURPC@aol.com -- Michael Feld | E-mail: <feld@cc.umanitoba.ca> Dept. of Philosophy | FAX: (204) 275-2411 University of Manitoba | Voice: (604) 733-8134 Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada From caf-talk Caf Mar 15 11:03:11 1995 From: mfeld@unixg.ubc.ca (Michael Feld) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: Re: acad conversion Date: 15 Mar 1995 16:02:41 GMT Message-ID: <3k7331$h9h@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> >In article <3k2tjn$fo3@newsbf02.news.aol.com> fixyourpc@aol.com (FIXYOURPC) writes: >>I'm looking for anyone who has information on converting a HP-SCANJET >>output to a acad format. what formats are convertible and what software >>do I need. >> Imagine my disappointment, on seeing that the "acads" he has in mind to convert are neither academicians nor Acadians (nor Arcadians, neither). Imagine my hurt. - -- Michael Feld | E-mail: mfeld@unixg.ubc.ca c/o Philosophy Dept. | FAX: (604) 822-8782 UBC, Vancouver, BC | Voice: (604) 733-8134 V6T 1Z1 From caf-talk Caf Mar 15 17:08:43 1995 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: anonymous@freezone.remailer (anonymous) Subject: Censorship at schools... Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 05:07:47 +0000 Message-ID: <199503152107.AA20254@bolero.rahul.net> -=> Quoting Kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu to All <=- Ka> @SUBJECT:[alt.censorship] Censorship at schools... Ka> Message-ID: <3jkp1c$hto@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> Ka> Newsgroup: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Ka> Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Ka> [A repost - Carl] Ka> From: 92003623@white.lambton.on.ca (J Baillie) Ka> Newsgroups: alt.censorship Ka> Subject: Censorship at schools... Ka> Date: 6 Mar 1995 22:10:38 -0500 Ka> Message-ID: <3jgire$ggd@white.lambton.on.ca> Ka> q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews? Ka> a: Yes. Free inquiry and free expression are an important part of a Ka> university's mission. Most universities encourage and support student Ka> expression and publication. Most universities also seem to give full Ka> network access to all users, even students. (This conclusion is based Ka> on an informal survey posted to comp.admin.policy in October, 1991. Ka> [cafv01n33]) Ka> Ya well I wish some one would tell them that up here in Canada!. The Ka> admins at our college doesn't seem to agree with that. They censor what Ka> news groups the school recieves and now that the internet is growing at Ka> our college our admin is trying to scare the students away from using Ka> the internet. At our site our admin keeps making threats that he is Ka> going to perminatly block all the students from the internet (no Ka> FTP'S or TELNET'S) they already limit what news areas we are allowed to Ka> read. Geez what is next, I hope he doesn't do the block on the TELNET Ka> and FTP command. Another thing he said he was going to do is put a Ka> disk quota so low that none of the students could store anything he was Ka> also going to put a cpu quota on our server. What exactly can the Ka> students do against an admin like this one. Considering what he is Ka> thinking about doing is an exrtreme case of CENSORSHIP. Jamie As usual, there goes Jamie Baillie <92003623@white.lambton.on.ca>, whining again.... why don't you give us all a break, eh Jamie? It's funny that no one else at Lambton College seems to be concerned about this alleged censorship issue--have you got any evidence to back up your claims with? Anything at all? Given your history, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the sysadmins at Lambton College were trying to put some limits on your access..... For those who are unaware of his history, here's a thumbnail sketch: Mr. Baillie at one time ran a bulletin board in Sarnia, the town where he lives. He violated a publication ban on the infamous Homolka case, by using the userids and passwords of former users of his bulletin board service, to upload the banned information onto several other local bulletin boards. As the official investigation report filed by Sarnia police constable R. Vandam states: "He admitted that he had uploaded the information a number of times on different local bulletin boards and that he had used the names and passwords of persons who had formerly subscribed to his bulletin board last year." The users of his bulletin board trusted him, and he clearly violated that trust--if things had turned out differently, one of the users whose id and password he misused might very well have found themselves the object of a police investigation. Given Baillie's history, I wouldn't trust anything he says; he's already demonstrated that his ethics are in the toilet.... From caf-talk Caf Mar 15 20:09:03 1995 Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.politics.datahighway,comp.org.cpsr.talk From: board@lava.nrtc.northrop.com (Ian Board ) Subject: Re: Communications Decency Act of 1995 - Carriers Liable for Content? Message-ID: <D5I4LC.AxM@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 21:48:47 GMT In article <3jj6v4$gta@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>, Andrew C Bulhak <acb@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au> wrote: >Soundwave [ASTEK] (cgould@gate.net) wrote: > >: So what are they going to do? Try and shut down the whole network or >: something? Prosecute all those carrying such material (which means >: shutting down a good portion of the network)? Turn the network into some >: Prodigy clone, where it's nicely graphical, expensive, and is littered >: with professional advertisements? > >First, they get the law passed. > >Then they tell everyone to watch themselves. The big boys (CIS, AOL, etc.) >employ censors to vet Usenet and cut off access to uncensorable things like >IRC. > >Then they pick a few small providers at random, raid them, seize their >assets and jail them. All of a sudden, most sites get scared and comply,m >with the exception of a few sites which are so far downstream that they >don't make a difference. This means that sites which cannot afford to have >a staff of censors monitoring and moderating all of USENET will have to >deny access to USENET altogether. > >Note that this will also either kill UNIX-based sites or cause stringent >restrictions to be built into them so that users cannot write programs to >open sockets to other sites and transmit pornography. In other words, >everything will look a lot more like VMS. > >-- > Andrew Bulhak acb@cs.monash.edu.au acb@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au > Which part of "Cthulhu fhtagn" don't you understand? Looked at this way, it seems VERY MUCH in the interests of the large providers to get this law passed. I never considered the monopoly promoting aspect of the legislation before. As someone who once had an account with one of the big providers and abandoned them in disgust, I hope this scenario never happens. From caf-talk Caf Mar 15 21:04:34 1995 From: JD16@ix.netcom.com (Jonathan Hiler) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: ****FAST CASH--EASY AND LEGAL***** Date: 15 Mar 1995 21:04:31 -0500 Message-ID: <3k868t$slt@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com.795319469> PLEASE LISTEN BEFORE YOU START FLAMING ME GET IGNORED SEVERELY. I THOUGHT THESE THINGS WERE SCAMS ALSO BUT IN THE LAST WEEK I RECIEVED $50,000 IN THE MAIL FROM PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT PRYAMID SCHEMES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BUT I DO KNOW I MADE $50,000 AND ALL I GAVE WAS 5. I WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO JOIN IN MY GOOD FORTUNE!!! INSTRUCTIONS Follow these instructions EXACTLY, and in 20 to 60 days you will have received over $50,000 dollars in CASH. 1) Immediately mail $1.00 to the first 5 names listed below, starting at number 1 through number 5. SEND CASH ONLY. (Total investment: $5.00) ENCLOSE A LETTER WITH A NOTE SAYING: "Please add my name to your mailing list." Include your name and mailing address. **This is a legitimate service that you are requesting and you are paying $1.00 for this service.*** 2) Remove the name that appears as number 1 on the list. Move the other 9 names up on postion (Number 2 becomes number 1, number 3 becomes number 2, and so on). Place your name, address, and zip code in the number 10 position. 3) With your name in the number 10 position, upload this ENTIRE FILE to 15 different bulletin boards or newsgroups. You may it to the BB's message base or to the file section. Name it FASTCASH.TXT, and use the file description comments to drew attention to this file and its great potential for all of us. 4) Within 60 days you will receive over $50,000.00 in CASH. Keep a copy of this file for yourself so that you can use it again and again whenever you need money. As soon as you mail out these letters you are automatically in the mail order business. People will be sending $1.00 to be placed on your mailing list. This list can then be rented to a broker that can be found in your local yellow pages listings for additional income on a regular basis. The list will become more valuable as it grows in size. This is a service. **IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL** If you have any doubts as to the legality of this service, please refer to Title 18, hSections 1302 and 1341 of the Postal Lottery Laws. NOTE: Make sure that you retain EVERY name and address sent to you, either on computer or hard copy, but do not discard the names and notes that people send to you. This is PROOF that you are truly providing a service, and should the I.R.S. or some other government agency question you, you can provide them with this proof! Remember, as each post is downloaded and the instructions carefully followed, five members will be reimbursed for their participation as List Developer with $1.00 each. Your name will move up the list geometrically so that when your name reaches the number 5 position you will be receiving thousands of dollars in cash. REMEMBER- THIS PROGRAM FAILS ONLY IF YOU ARE NOT HONEST- PLEASE, PLEASE BE HONORABLE.. IT DOES WORK!!! THANK YOU. 1. Wes Schoppe 1507 Sage Boot Pflugerville, TX 78660 2. Brenda Benzer PO Box 1084 Austin, TX 78767 3. Corine Yonkers 5401 Avenue F Austin, TX 78751 4. Scott Robert 14619 Kiwanis Dr Newbury, OH 44065 5. Marty LaJoy 2355 Murray Hill Rd. #440D Cleveland, OH 44106 6. Jose Jimanez 2355 Murray Hill Rd. #440H Cleveland, OH 44106 7. Charles Cross 502 O'Shaugnessy Hall Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 24060 8. Haris Sarantis 5352 Appian Way Long Beach, CA 90803 9. Robert Sustar 458 Grace Watson Rochester, NY 14623 10. Jonathan Hiler 2038 Surrey Ln Roanoke, VA 24012 The following letter was written by a participating member in this program. ***************************************************************** To those with the COMMON SENSE to participate in this easy money opportunity: About six months ago I received the enclosed post in letter form. I ignored it. I received about five more of the same letters within the next two weeks. I ignored them also. Of course, I was tempted to follow through and dreamed of making thousands, but I was convinced it was just another gimmick and could not possibly work. I was wrong! About three weeks later I saw this same letter posted on a local bulletin board in Montreal. I liked the idea of giving it a try with my computer. I didn't expect much because I figured, if other people were as skeptical as I, they would not be too quick to part with $5.00. But, I buy lottery tickets weekly in my provine and have nothing to show for it but ticket stubs. This week I decided to look at this as my weekly lottery purchase. I addressed the envelopes and mailed out $1.00 in each as directed. Two weeks went by and I didn't receive anything in the mail. The fourth week rolled around and I couldn't beleive what happened! I can't say that I received $50,000 but it was well over $35,000! For the first time in 10 years I got out of debt. It was great! Of course, it didn't take me long to go through my earnings so I am using this excellent money making opportunity once again. FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AND GET READY TO ENJOY! Please send a copy of this letter along with the enclose letter so together we can convince people who are skeptical that this really does work!!!! Good Luck, Charles Kust From caf-talk Caf Mar 16 01:17:14 1995 From: dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet,alt.wired,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.individualism Subject: The freedom of USENET is at hand, please read this. Date: 15 Mar 1995 22:16:49 -0800 Message-ID: <3k8l4h$ioc@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov> *** IMPORTANT. THE FREEDOM OF USENET IS AT HAND. *** Help protect the freedom of usenet. Read this message. [*] What's going on? A small committee of 4 proposes to pass de-facto judgement on all issues of "abuse" on USENET, by using a moderated group to provide what they claim will be "information" on net abuse. Worst of all, the committee has the right to change their charter by a majority vote of the committee itself. [*] Why is this bad? There are a few reasons, listed from the most important to the least important. 1) The charter directly says: Any rule changes will be made by majority of the moderators. Note what the above statement means. Once you've voted the group in, they can change the charter out from under you and do things anyway they want. This alone should be enough reason to vote NO on such a proposal, especially when it deals with net abuse. 2) During discussion of this newsgroup, several questions were raised which were not answered by the proponents. In particular: -Questions about the determination of standards for "what is abuse" were sidestepped. The fact is that it will be the unaided judgement of the moderators, operating under unspecified rules, unaccountable to anyone. Plus, with the clause above, they can change their own standard on their whim. -The need for some recourse, or right to confront unjust accusations of abuse had been recognized, but the solution proposed is woefully inadequate. Questions about changing this recourse were not answered. In particular, if your account is closed due to a claim of abuse, you have *no* way of replying. -The moderated group may be a way to promote abusive behavior on a scale which we have not yet seen. If someone is clever enough to fool one of the moderators with a forgery, then it could be you that has your reputation destroyed and your account cancelled. Questions about this state of affairs were met with a total absolving of responsibility by the moderators. From the charter: The moderators of this group should not be held responsible for actions taken by others in response to articles posted to news.admin.net-abuse.announce. And yet Joel Furr, a proposed moderator, says (in public): And speaking for the other proposed moderators, the *last* thing any of us are going to do is speak out on spamming in our capacities as moderators, if the group passes. We know better than to get mixed up in bullshit like that if we're in some way in a position to be pointed at as authorities. So they _are_ claiming to be authorities, and hence they want to have the posting be treated as official, despite what their charter says. 3) Tale@uunet is a good example of what happens when a moderator is given power. He has "de facto" power over newsgroup creation by being the moderator of the newsgroup that posts messages pertaining to the creation process of big 7 newsgroups. Because of this, Tale has what is called the "pocket veto"...if he does not like an RFD he does not post it. There are no channels for challenging this pocket veto, and tale has been the moderator for so long, many sites trust him unconditionally. The same potential exists for the "abuse" committee. After a few years pass, enough people may trust the abuse committee in this fashion. The abuse committee will be able to label any post "abuse" that they choose to, including messages that "don't fit certain standards". One of those messages could be yours, and you could lose your internet access just because one of these committee members doesn't like what you have to say. [*] So why should I believe all this? You don't have to take this posting's word for it. Read the charter for yourself, over in news.announce.newgroups. [*] What can I do? *** I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO ON THE MODERATED GROUP PROPOSAL! *** HERE'S HOW TO VOTE Give your name on the line that asks for it. If you don't want to vote on a particular group, just leave the space blank. Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your reply inserts. Then mail the ballot to: news-admin-vote@amdahl.com Just Replying to this message should work, but check the "To:" line. Quick voting checklist: 1) Fill in the ballot form shown below. 2) Delete the rest of this message from your reply. 3) Make sure your reply goes to news-admin-vote@amdahl.com ========== BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete everything before this line ========== news.admin reorganization Ballot <NA-REORG2-0001> (Don't remove this marker) Give your real name here: [Your Vote] Group ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [ YES ] example.yes.vote [ NO ] example.no.vote [ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention [ ] news.admin.hierarchies [ NO ] news.admin.net-abuse.announce [ ] news.admin.net-abuse.misc [ ] REMOVE news.config (see proposal) [ ] REMOVE news.future (see proposal) [ ] REMOVE news.newsites (see proposal) [ ] REMOVE news.software.notes (see proposal) ============= END OF BALLOT: Delete everything after this line ============== -- Dave Hayes -- Institutional NETworks - Section 394 -- JPL/NASA - Pasadena CA dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh [ Keep USENET free! - http://iems.jpl.nasa.gov/~dave/voteno.html ] Learn from the mistakes of others. You don't have time to make them all yourself. From caf-talk Caf Mar 16 07:01:38 1995 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: John@longevb.demon.co.uk (John de Rivaz) Subject: Re: stopping the spread of electronic pron? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 11:57:44 +0000 Message-ID: <704036414wnr@longevb.demon.co.uk> If porn is freely available, everyone will soon realise what boreing stuff it really all is. The real perversity is all those people who take professional fee income out of trying to supress it. They merely encourage vendors (by thinning the competition) and make iot appear more interesting than it really is. Remember h w when CB in the UK was illegal how the airwaves were full of people using equipment imported from free(er) countries? Now it is legal, the airwaves are virtually silent. Remember the lessons of alcohol prohibition in the USA. -- Sincerely, **************************************** * Publisher of Longevity Report * John de Rivaz * Fractal Report * * details on request * **************************************** **** What is the point of life if it ends in death? **** From caf-talk Caf Mar 16 11:10:21 1995 From: krs@li.net (Kevin Smith) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: Footworks Anyone???? Date: 16 Mar 1995 15:58:22 GMT Message-ID: <3k9n6u$11q@linet02.li.net> Anyone know anything about a software package by the name of Footworks that runs on a Unix platform? Any pro's and or con's infor would be greatly appreciated. Not to mention saving a few jobs for the AS400 people that will have to implement this new hardware and software package. Thanks. KEvin From caf-talk Caf Mar 16 12:38:39 1995 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk From: devans@hclb.demon.co.uk (Dave Evans) Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] JANET censorship Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 17:24:16 +0000 Message-ID: <795399856snx@hclb.demon.co.uk> In article <3k4o0m$491@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> kadie@sal (Fwd:) writes: > [A repost - Carl] > > From: "Krebsy Halliwell." <BCS93SH@dmu.ac.uk> > Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk > Subject: JANET censorship > Date: 14 Mar 1995 17:07:18 GMT > Message-ID: <3k4ig6$han@macondo.dmu.ac.uk> > > I'm not sure if this is exactly the correct group. > > > Does anyone know who to get in touch with regarding > the censorship of usenet by JANET as it enters the UK. A repost from the uk.community group ---- begin ---- From: mike@globe.dungeon.com (Mike Barnes) Newsgroups: uk.org.community Subject: JANET UseNet policy Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 13:29:31 GMT Organization: Globetrotter Message-ID: <3k6q3r$kd4_002@mavericks.bt.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: mbpc.mavericks.bt.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Follow-Ups: uk.community Hi all, Sorry this is a bit late. ---- JANET newsgroup availability A CommUnity Bulletin 25/2/1995 c/o Mike Barnes There has recently been concern about a JANET network-wide policy which prevents academic news servers from carrying certain newsgroups - in particular the alt.sex.* hierarchy. Some people have viewed this as censorship, and contrary to the university ethos of free speech. CommUnity asked UKERNA, the organisation which operates JANET on behalf of the Higher Education Councils of England, Scotland and Wales, to provide more information on their policy. Their response follows, with comment by CommUnity at the end. " The funding councils have a committee (JISC - Joint Information Systems Committee) that manages networking for them. The JISC gives UKERNA instructions on what services we are to provide. The JISC has an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) that determines what JANET may be used for. EUNet(GB) have a contract with UKERNA to manage the distribution of news within JANET. The policy adopted on what news groups are distributed is: 1. Potentially offensive, obscene etc items should not be distributed. 2. Items that are considered to infringe copyright should not be distributed. 3. Items that potentially infringe the Criminal Justice Act, The Oscene Publications Act, and other similar acts should not be distributed. 4. Items that may be against the aims of the AUP should not be distributed. 5. News groups where it is considered that no demand exists are also not distributed. Decisions on which news groups should be excluded from the general distribution are made jointly by EUNet(GB) (they have an interest as being potentially liable to prosecution) and UKERNA. For ease of administration, barring of news groups is taken at the highest level considered reasonable, hence the bar imposed on alt.sex.* despite there being groups inside which are acceptable. Decisions are made on the basis of the group name in the first instance. If complaints are received of another group carrying news coming under 1-4 above then they would be barred in the same way. It is always open for any site receiving news to request that undistributed news groups be allowed through to them. " It has also been made clear that JANET sites are not at liberty, under the EUNet(GB) contract, to make other arrangements for their news feed. CommUnity does not see an issue here. There are three main reasons why: 1. The current UK law is unclear and it is unreasonable to expect news providers to place themselves at risk of prosecution. It is CommUnity's belief that change is required to clarify all possibly applicable laws (a process that has already begun). 2. The news providers own their news feed and equipment, and should be allowed the freedom to distribute whatever newsgroups they desire - choosing whether to risk flakey laws or not. 3. If you really want to read disallowed groups you are free to pay around 10 per month to the provider of your choice to get an entire news feed (Demon current carry every group available anywhere, according to them). A further concern is that users *.ac.uk sites are unable to attach to the Demon pubnews.demon.co.uk news server (and perhaps others). This also seems to be because of news distributor's arrangements. However, there seems to be no clear policy on individuals connecting to remote servers - the policy currently deals with the feeds to the JANET news servers themselves. The advice from CommUnity to anyone who finds themselves unable to access a newsgroup which they feel they should be able to access is this: In the first instance, contact your local news administrator and ask if they mind you connecting to a remote server. They may know of one you could connect to, or on their authority you might be able to find one. Failing that, or for a more long term solution, ask your news administator to look into getting the newsgroup you are seeking fed through the normal channels. If it is a reasonable request then there is no reason to suspect that action will not be taken. It is not recommended that you try to take an unauthorised news feed, as this may (depending on the rules at your site) cause you much grief! If you have trouble getting anyone to help, even after putting together a reasoned request, contact CommUnity and we will be pleased to try to help. This advice does not only apply to JANET users. In other cases, where you are getting a news feed which you find unacceptable, you should attempt to get a fuller news feed or vote with your feet. Mike Barnes (mike@globe.dungeon.com), for CommUnity ---- Mike Barnes, technology editor of Globetrotter Magazine URL: http://www.dungeon.com/home/globe/home.html Voicemail: 01875 614888 - follow the prompts to box 049 ---- end of repost ---- From caf-talk Caf Mar 16 14:31:54 1995 From: ronnb@crl.com (Ronald G. Blaylock) Newsgroups: soc.college.grad,alt.censorship,memphis.general,tn.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis Date: 16 Mar 1995 11:25:45 -0800 Message-ID: <3ka3bp$4du@crl.crl.com> Carl M Kadie (kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu) wrote: : [Two alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk faq's : q: If a state university calls computer or network access a : "privilege", can they remove an individual's access arbitrarily? : q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a : public university can do anything it wants with the media that it : owns, right? : Also information on limits to a public university's authority : to "contract away" constitutional rights. : - Carl] <CLIP> IMHO: The person who does the writing and posting to the newsgroup owns the copyright to the material he or she writes. The university does not. I assume the university can limit access to the computer but they cannot legally or arbitrarily change or limit access to a persons legally owned copyrighted material. The university certainly should have the right to limit my access but I also would assume I have the right to retrieve my copyrighted material before they cut off access. But this is just an opinion and may have nothing to do with reality. Ron From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 10:36:09 1995 From: acb@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (Andrew C Bulhak) Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.politics.datahighway,comp.org.cpsr.talk Subject: Re: Communications Decency Act of 1995 - Carriers Liable for Content? Date: 17 Mar 1995 15:27:18 GMT Message-ID: <3kc9om$8o3@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> John de Rivaz (John@longevb.demon.co.uk) wrote: : In article: <3jj6v4$gta@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> : acb@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (Andrew C Bulhak) writes: : > Then they pick a few small providers at random, raid them, seize their : ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ : > assets and jail them. All of a sudden, most sites get scared and comply,m : ^^^^^^ : > with the exception of a few sites which are so far downstream that they : > don't make a difference. This means that sites which cannot afford to have : > a staff of censors monitoring and moderating all of USENET will have to : > deny access to USENET altogether. : This is just the sort of legal terrorism that Nazis used. Will humanity ever : learn? I don't think that the Nazis invented these methods; they were used by every repressive regime in history, because they are effective. As for whether humanity will ever learn, maybe in a few hundred years' time authoritarianism will disappear together. Either that or Orwell will be proven right. Who knows? -- A n d r e w B u l h a k acb@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au "Sanity is for the masses who don't know how acb@cs.monash.edu.au to handle insanity." acb@zikzak.net -- Tim Sailer From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 12:32:58 1995 From: barr@math.psu.edu (Dave Barr) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet,alt.wired,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.individualism Subject: Re: The freedom of USENET is at hand, please read this. Date: 17 Mar 1995 17:32:48 GMT Message-ID: <3kch40$1s0@soc2.pop.psu.edu> In article <3k8l4h$ioc@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov>, Dave Hayes <dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >[*] Why is this bad? > >There are a few reasons, listed from the most important to the least >important. > >1) The charter directly says: > > Any rule changes will be made by majority of the moderators. Our charter no longer says this. Yes, that's what is in the CFV, but that is because we didn't get to vote on a change before the CFV went out. It's too late to back out the vote now -- all I can say is that we've used our power to change the rules to vote to give up that power to the public. Hey, even the U.S. Constitution didn't get it right on the first signing. >Note what the above statement means. Once you've voted the group in, >they can change the charter out from under you and do things anyway >they want. This alone should be enough reason to vote NO on such a >proposal, especially when it deals with net abuse. Any change in editorial policy must be approved by a 2/3rds public vote. Anyone who still has concerns about what the group is and what it means, please talk to me privately via e-mail or gimme a call. --Dave From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 13:24:22 1995 From: Druff <71553.1102@CompuServe.COM> Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: FTC Legislative ALERT! Date: 17 Mar 1995 18:19:38 GMT Message-ID: <3kcjrq$nkd$9@mhadf.production.compuserve.com> Legislative Alert! New proposed Federal Trade Commission Rules on Telemarketing pose a great threat to businesses, sysops, list brokers, copywriters, printers, desktop publishers, etc., and to freedom of speech! Your Immediate Attention Is Called To 16 CFR Part 310 Telemarketing Sales Rules Note: Section 310. Definitions...includes...the use of facsimile machines...computer modems, or any telephonic medium. Your attention is called to "Assisting and Facilitating" Section 310.3[b] [1] {page 11} of the proposed rule sets forth a general prohibition against assisting or facilitating deceptive telemarketing acts or practices. Assistors who engage in these activities will violate the rule if they know, or should know, that the person they are assisting is engaged in an act or practice that violates the rule. The five types of assisting and facilitating activities listed in the proposed rule are as follows: first, providing lists of customer contacts to a seller or telemarketer [e.g., serving as a list broker]...and fifth, providing any script, advertising, brochure, promotional material, or direct marketing piece to be used in telemarketing. Section 310.4[b] [pages 14 & 15] ...it is an abusive act or practice and a violation of the rule to call a person's residence to offer, offer for sale, or sell, on behalf of the same seller, the same or similar goods or services more than once within any three month period... Page 25 - #7 - The proposed rule states that the term "telemarketing" includes the use of a facsimile machine, computer modem, or any other telephonic medium, as well as calls initiated by persons in response to postcards, brochures, advertisements, or any other printed, audio, video, cinematic or electronic communications by or on behalf of the seller... Page 25 - #8 - The proposed definition of "telemarketing" includes within the rule's coverage On-Line information services which a person accesses by computer modem. Section 310.3 [a] [4] {page 11} would prohibit consumers from paying by check over the phone without prior written authorization while allowing credit card holders to do so without prior written authorization. This would discriminate against the 75 million consumers who do not have a credit card, the millions of consumers who have no usable credit on their credit card and the businesses, most of them small or new, who cannot obtain credit card merchant status to accept credit cards. It would also further the monopoly of Visa and MasterCard and the up to 21 percent interest they charge credit card users. Please read the proposed rules in their entirety to ascertain their possible effect on your business, the telemarketing industry and the growth of the Information Super Highway. Since most businesses and individuals are totally unaware of these proposed rules, it is important that this information is distributed through every means possible so that interested parties have the opportunity to comment and protect their interests. Written comments must be submitted on or before March 31, 1995. A public workshop-conference will be held at the Chicago Hilton on April 18th through April 20th from 9am to 5pm. Five paper copies of each written comment should be submitted to the ... Office of the Secretary, Room 159, Federal Trade Commission, Washington DC 20580. To encourage prompt and efficient review and dissemination of the comments to the public, all comments should be submitted, if possible, in electronic form, on either a 5< or 3= inch computer disk, with a label on the disk stating the name of the commenter and the name and version of the word processing program used to create the document. Submissions should be captioned: "Proposed Telemarketing Sales Rule" FTC File NO. R411001. The full 50 pages of the proposed rules can be downloaded from the NYACC Bulletin Board, file name "FTC" - phone 718-539-3338. I would appreciate your feedback and a copy of any comments that you intend to submit and I suggest that you disseminate this information as widely as possible. Ronald A. Stewart 126 13th Street Brooklyn, NY 11215 Phone 718-768-6803 Fax 718-965-3400 From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 13:27:30 1995 From: Druff <71553.1102@CompuServe.COM> Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: FTC legislative alert (more info) Date: 17 Mar 1995 18:20:26 GMT Message-ID: <3kcjta$nkd$10@mhadf.production.compuserve.com> File Name "FTcanswr.asc" Proposed comments to FTC about written authorization required for checks by phone Under Section 310.3 [a] [4] of the proposed rule, it is a prohibited deceptive telemarketing act or practice for a seller or telemarketer to obtain or submit for payment from a person's checking, savings, share, or similar account, a check, draft, or other form of negotiable paper without that person's express written authorization. For example, a telemarketer cannot submit an unsigned draft on a consumer's bank account without that consumer's prior written authorization. This Section of the proposed rule would discriminate against the 75 million Americans who do not have a credit card [1990 census] and the millions of credit card holders who want to make a purchase by phone, fax, computer, computer bulletin board, etc., but who have no usable credit on their card. Would discriminate against the thousands of new and small businesses who cannot obtain Credit Card Merchant Status to accept major credit cards and reduce their sales by not being able to accept a customer's check over the phone. The rules would allow credit card payments over the phone, increasing the monopoly of MasterCard and Visa with their up to 21 percent charges to consumers. Would effectively kill the rapidly growing "checks by phone" industry, putting over 20 companies (and their employees) out of business and costing countless less sales to the thousands of clients these businesses are now servicing. Fraud associated with checks by phone is less than with credit cards. Any consumer can take a check to his or her bank and, since consumer's signature is not on check, have the check kicked back to the bank it was originally deposited in and have their account credited. As with credit card sales over the phone, it is the merchant that is at risk, not the consumer. The FTC must demonstrate why checks over the phone must require prior written authorization from consumers [which would effectively negate its usefulness] while allowing credit card purchases by phone without prior written authorization. In order for the Information Super Highway to continue to grow, checks by phone will play a positive important role. People will be shopping from their personal computers, from their TV sets using their interactive remote control device...on computer bulletin boards and on the Internet and by fax machine. Consumers will need ways to transmit money over the phone and fax lines and businesses will need ways to receive money by phone line and fax and by computer. 75 million Americans do not have a credit card and thousands of legitimate businesses cannot qualify for credit card merchant account status to accept major credit cards. To preclude checks by phone will cause great economic loss to the American economy. If banks received numerous complaints about checks by phone they would stop paying them [checks without account holders signature]. Handicapped, the elderly, shut-ins, etc., would be further penalized by being forced to address envelopes, purchase postage stamps, and going to a mail box instead of being able to conveniently give a check over the phone. If future information and statistics demonstrate that checks by phone produces more fraud and complaints than credit card fraud, the FTC can revisit this issue in future rules. No anecdotal evidence presently exists that this is currently the case. From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 16:06:28 1995 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet,alt.wired,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.individualism From: twpierce@midway.uchicago.edu (Tim Pierce) Subject: Re: The freedom of USENET is at hand, please read this. Message-ID: <D5LrF3.6Hq@midway.uchicago.edu> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 20:54:39 GMT THE FREEDOM OF USENET IS AT HAND. What's going on? A proposal is currently underway in news.announce.newgroups to reorganize the news.admin.* hierarchy, removing some dormant newsgroups and creating two new newsgroups for discussing "net abuse." These two are: * news.admin.net-abuse.announce * news.admin.net-abuse.misc Unfortunately, a few opponents of this reorganization have vocally opposed the creation of the "announce" newsgroup because it is moderated. What's wrong with this? The biggest irony of all is that the moderators of the proposed newsgroup will not be composing their own reports. They will simply receive reports of "net abuse" that others send in, and post these reports to news.admin.net-abuse.announce, leaving others to draw their own conclusions about whether the reported behavior really constitutes "abuse." The group will basically be a low-noise version of the already-existing alt.current-events.net-abuse, which is nearly impossible to navigate due to its high traffic and very low signal. The only action they will take will be to filter out non-announcements, or items they find specifically not to constitute abuse. Here's what the opponents say: * Once the newsgroup has been created, the moderators can change the charter and do whatever they want. That's the way moderated groups have always worked. Few moderated groups exist today whose charters have not shifted slightly with the passing of time. This is hardly the time or the place to be raising general objections to the moderation structure in Usenet. Besides, the following points were added to the charter immediately preceding the CFV. They will show up in the second CFV: + Selection of new moderators will be made by majority. Forcible removal of a moderator will be by consensus of remaining moderators. + Changes must be approved by a public two-thirds majority vote. A change is proposed, and after no less than three weeks of discussion in news.admin.net-abuse.misc, a vote lasting three weeks is started. Two-thirds of those voting "yes" or "no" must be yes for the change to take place. The UVV team will be used for the vote. * The moderators refuse to define what they mean by "net abuse." The standards for defining net abuse have never been clear-cut. The debate on what is and isn't abuse rages on continually. And yet, despite this ambiguity and "I know it when I see it" procedure, agreement on what constitutes "net abuse" has reached the closest equivalent to unanimity that an anarchic society of several million individuals can possibly hope for. Only a true paranoid skeptic would assume that the proposed moderators of news.admin.net-abuse.announce plan never to consider the public consensus on net abuse. * No satisfactory method exists for accused net abusers to confront their accusers, or to redress their grievances. Someone whose account has been cancelled cannot even respond at all. This is false. See the "Right of Reply" section in the news.admin.net-abuse.announce charter. Apart from that, however, what "accusers" are being referred to here? The charter does not claim the group to be a court of law, or some star chamber meting out punishment. In fact, it explicitly rejects that notion: "The purpose of this group is not to decide the guilt or innocence of any parties, but rather to simply report on the activity (much like the crime section found in many local newspapers)." The "accused" parties may respond once in news.admin.net-abuse.announce, and as many times as they wish in news.admin.net-abuse.misc, if they feel they have been wrongly cited. The charge that the moderators should be held responsible for the cancellation of someone's account is not even worth answering. The moderators of news.admin.net-abuse.announce will have only as much "power" as the readers wish to give them. That is an important point to remember. * Forged articles submitted to the moderators may prove disastrous for the party whose name has been forged. So? That's true about Usenet in general. Claiming that this is a reason to vote against news.admin.net-abuse.announce is like arguing that you shouldn't buy a Nissan Sentra because flying is safer than driving. * No recourse exists to deal with a moderator gone bad. This, too, is true of Usenet in general. Unless you object to the very concept of a moderated newsgroup -- and there are those who do -- it's not clear why this should bear special weight against news.admin.net-abuse.announce. The point seems to be that there is a risk in sites trusting the moderators unconditionally, but again, they have only as much power as people choose to give them. You can find the newsgroup charter in the CFV in news.announce.newsgroups. Its Message-ID is <news.admin-reorg2-CFV1@uunet.uu.net>. What can I do? YOU CAN VOTE YES ON THE MODERATED GROUP PROPOSAL! HERE'S HOW TO VOTE: Follow these instructions and use the mailto link provided, or cut-and-paste the indicated text (including the "BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and "END OF BALLOT" lines!) and send it yourself in your favorite mail agent. Give your name on the line that asks for it. If you don't want to vote on a particular group, just leave the space blank. Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your reply inserts. Then mail the ballot to news-admin-vote@amdahl.com. Quick voting checklist: 1. Fill in the ballot form shown below. Change any votes you don't agree with. 2. Delete the rest of this message from your reply, retaining the "BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and "END OF BALLOT" lines. 3. Make sure your reply goes to news-admin-vote@amdahl.com. ========== BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete everything before this line ========== news.admin reorganization Ballot (Don't remove this marker) Give your real name here: [Your Vote] Group ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [ YES ] example.yes.vote [ NO ] example.no.vote [ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention [ ABSTAIN ] news.admin.hierarchies [ YES ] news.admin.net-abuse.announce [ YES ] news.admin.net-abuse.misc [ ABSTAIN ] REMOVE news.config (see proposal) [ ABSTAIN ] REMOVE news.future (see proposal) [ ABSTAIN ] REMOVE news.newsites (see proposal) [ ABSTAIN ] REMOVE news.software.notes (see proposal) ============= END OF BALLOT: Delete everything after this line ============== -- Unsolicited commercial electronic mail sent to this address will be proofread at a cost of $200/hour (one half-hour minimum). <URL:http://http.bsd.uchicago.edu/~t-pierce/news/voteyes.html> From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 18:31:25 1995 From: sears@uh.edu (Paul S. Sears) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Subject: At .edu sites, who owns a student's research work? Date: 17 Mar 1995 23:27:03 GMT Message-ID: <3kd5s7$j1u@masala.cc.uh.edu> We are facing a problem that we do not think has been adequately addressed. First, the overall question is: Who owns a student user's work (project, etc - not email) a) when the student is enrolled at a public university. b) when a student leaves a public univerity. We already understand that email is protected by the ECPA, but we are mainly interested in graduate/phd research work. When a student leaves, who retains the rights to the research completed by the student - his/her advisor or the student? Often we are requested to give the student's advisor ownership of all research realted files. We always make an attempt to contact the ex-student, but often, we can't locate them in a reasonable amount of time. From what we understand about intellectual property, the University retains all rights to research and patents developed by faculty, since they are paid to do this. However, the student pays to attend (although, they are also often compensated for doing research)... Can someone clarify this issue? -- Paul S. Sears * sears@uh.edu (NeXT Mail OK) The University of Houston * http://www.egr.uh.edu/~sears/ Engineering Computing Center * NeXT System Administration * DoD#1967 '83 NightHawk 650SC "Programming is like sex: One mistake and you support it a lifetime." From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 21:05:31 1995 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) Subject: --> NEWSFLASH! More Internet-Related Legal Threats by Scientology Message-ID: <noringD5M3q9.23J@netcom.com> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 01:20:32 GMT [Notice the Followup-To: line above.] In article to alt.religion.scientology, Daniel Davidson, davidson@sfsu.edu <3kd03r$64d@news.csus.edu> wrote: ... prompting the email below: From jtrue@sfsu.eduFri Mar 17 13:42:07 1995 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 13:15:37 -0800 From: John True <jtrue@sfsu.edu> To: davidson@sfsu.edu Subject: Student Discipline Charge March 17, 1995 Daniel Davidson Please be advised that as Executive Director of Computing Services, I have filed a Student Discipline Charge against you with the Office of Student Affairs for violation of the Student Conduct Code (Title 5, California Code of Regulations). This action is based on a complaint that you posted substantial portions, and in some cases the entirety, of copyrighted, unpublished works onto the Internet without authorization. John True ************************************ John True jtrue@sfsu.edu Computing Services San Francisco State University ************************************ And the following email arrived this morning: >From hkk@netcom.comFri Mar 17 10:04:51 1995 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 09:20:04 -0800 (PST) From: Helena Kobrin <hkk@netcom.com> To: davidson@sfsu.edu Subject: Copyrighted materials Dear Mr. Davidson: I represent Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner of the confidential Advanced Technology of the religion of Scientology, and the holder of exclusive rights under the copyrights applicable to the Advanced Technology materials. Among these copyrighted and confidential materials are the Advanced Technology materials of certain levels known as "Operating Thetan Sections I, II and III," "the L Rundowns The L-12 Rundown Step 6," "NED for OTs Series 1, 34, 35, 36, 43." We have been informed that you have posted substantial portions, and in some cases the entirety, of these copyrighted, unpublished works onto the Internet without the authorization of our client, who, of course, would not have given such authorization had it been requested. Your action violates our client's legal rights in that it is the unauthorized making of electronic copies of the copyrighted material and the unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets materials. These actions constitute violations of the United States Copyright laws entitling our client to damages, an injunction, and impounding of materials and equipment used in perpetrating the infringing acts. It is essential that you take immediate and effective action to remove the unauthorized copies from the Internet, and that you refrain from any repetition of this or similar acts in the future. I will expect an immediate response from you with a statement of your willingness to comply with these demands. If you do not comply immediately, I expect to be authorized to initiate legal action to compel compliance. Very truly yours, Helena K. Kobrin -- = Daniel Davidson = davidson@sfsu.edu When seeing someone lying unconscious on a city street, it is considered appropriate to continue walking, essentially unaffected. *********************** -- OmniMedia | The Electronic Bookstore. Come in and browse! Two 1312 Carlton Place | locations: ftp.netcom.com /pub/Om/OmniMedia/books Livermore, CA 94550 | and ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia 510-294-8153 | E-book publishing service follows NWU recommendations. From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 21:35:44 1995 Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet,alt.wired,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.individualism From: skoper@netcom.com (Stan Koper) Subject: Re: The freedom of USENET is at hand, please read this. Message-ID: <vPPQlKZHGWIH079yn@netcom.com> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 14:02:33 GMT Did April 1 come early this year, or is it a full moon, or what? Stan Koper skoper@netcom.com "The Bill of Rights--Ten Impediments to Law Enforcement?" This message brought to you by uqwk and Yarn .079