🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1545@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> gln@cs.arizona.edu (GaRY NEweLl) writes:
> 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.
>
I think the point of having a policy is to define the computing
environment at a particular site. We can't be judging what is a
"restrictive" or "wide-open" environment in this group because of the
wide variety of member site environments. If my user community agrees
to operate in a "restrictive" environment, no one in this group is in
a position to tell me that my regulations are not correct. It really
doesn't matter whether the site is a university, company or government
agency. If the users agree to operate under a particular site's rules,
what does it matter to someone outside of the net?
The existence of a policy statement allows a site to protect its user
environment from within the site and from outside of the site.
I suspect that if you were the victim of some form of "harassment" (not
just confined to email,i.e, someone changes data in your dirs or deletes
a file from your dir) and the offending party when confronted says "Kiss
off" that your opinion would change slightly. There is a famous quote,
"A conservative is a liberal who was mugged." A well thought out policy
statement should PROTECT the user rights by defining their
RESPONSIBILITIES. 
As for the last sentence, I can't resist. I wasn't aware that "technical
employees" had the right to "influence student", etc. Jeez, we better
run out and tell other staff people such as librarians, athletic coaches,
clergy, lab techs, dining hall staff that they're not qualified to 
influence students. :-)
As far as universities go, please remember that students are NOT the
only users of university computer systems. 

>>      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...
> 
"Net-behavior" most certainly needs to be addressed. A internet site in
AZ could be subject to "sabotage and theft" from a site anywhere in the
world. An environment where "suspicion is rampant" is created when the
"creators" of the environment act in that way. The better approach is
to educate the user community that responsible behavior is critical to
a productive environment.
Point 6 really is no different than someone saying " you should report
a murder being committed". I don't think the intent is to create a
community of spies but to ensure that an injustice is handled properly.
Again, if you as an educator take the "Big Brother" approach, then you
will foster a suspicious environment. On the other hand, if you take the
approach of teaching responsibity, you create a better environment in
the long run. 

	-Randy Marchany
	VA Tech Computing Center
	Blacksburg, VA

"my opinions are mine and mine alone"
>> 					-- James Cameron  (jc@raven.bu.edu)
>
>
>				gln