🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JC.91May24115354@raven.bu.edu>, jc@raven.bu.edu (James Cameron) writes:
>      Boston University Information Technology                          ethics
>      Conditions of Use and Policy on Computing Ethics          March 26, 1990
>  
>                                 CONDITIONS OF USE
>      To protect  the integrity of  the University's computing  facilities and
>      the users thereof against unauthorized or  improper use of those facili-
>      ties, Boston University reserves the right, without notice, to: limit or
>      restrict any individual's use, and to inspect, copy, remove or otherwise
>      alter any data, file, or system resource which may undermine the author-
>      ized use of any computing facility.  Boston University also reserves the

 And just how does BU intend to determine if a file "may undermine the
authorized use of any computing facility"???? Great line but it sure
sounds like this is defending the right for some potential scumbag
sysadmin to poke around as he or she pleases - if anyone tried to
set up a rule like this here at Arizona I would expect that even the
faculty would choke on it (but I could be wrong).

>      right periodically to check any system and any other rights necessary to
>      protect its computing  facilities.    The University disclaims responsi-
>      bility for  loss of data or  interference with files resulting  from its
>      efforts to maintain the privacy and  security of those computing facili-

 This is truly revolting in my opinion. Why don't they just say "we can do
any damn thing we like and you can't say anything!" ?

>                             POLICY ON COMPUTING ETHICS
>      4.    You must not access, alter, copy, move or remove information, pro-
>      prietary software or other files (including programs, members of subrou-
>      tine libraries,  data and electronic mail)   without prior authorization
>      from the appropriate University data trustee,  security officer or other

 Huh? You can't remove email without permission? From a "University Data
Trustee" no less? I can only assume that this means others programs and
email right?

>      5.   You must not use any computing facility irresponsibly or needlessly
>      affect the work of others.   This includes transmitting or making acces-
>      sible offensive,  annoying or harassing material;  intentionally,  reck-

 Ah  - now here is where I have been having a problem with most of what I've
read in this group of late, with respect to this issue. Would one of you
care to define what is and what is not "offensive" or "harrassment" or
even better still "annoying" - since when does someone lose his right to
be annoying because he has computer access? Geezuz..... Seems to me this
all reduces to the "I know porn when I see it" argument - rather than
be explicit about what can or cannot be said or done (because that is too
risky!) some sysadmin is going to be given the power to make decisions
about what is harrassment or what is offensive and in effect, this technical
employee will be given the right to influence students - he will be taking
an academic role for which he is most likely not qualified and certainly
wasn't hired to do.

>      6.   You are  encouraged to report any violation of  these guidelines by
>      another individual and  any information relating to a flaw  in or bypass

 Maybe it is just me but I think that there are sections of this "policy" that 
simply reek to high heaven. This whole thing seems to set up an environment
where suspicion is rampant and where people are actually encouraged to
undermine other students/faculty etc. This does make sense in cases of
sabotage and theft and so on - but to tie "net-behavior" into this is
absurd in my opinion...
 
> 					-- James Cameron  (jc@raven.bu.edu)


				gln