🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <77253@brunix.UUCP>, plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak) writes:
> In article <1547@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> gln@cs.arizona.edu (GaRY NEweLl) writes:
> > Again, statements such as "Thou shall not annoy anyone" or "we can
> >look at any file or piece of email correspondence anytime we feel like
> >it" simply step beyond the realm of reasonable policies, in my opinion.
> >This may not hold for some govt sites or private organizations, but
> >it certainly should at any institution of higher education.
>    Hmmmmm.... every institution of higher education I've ever attended, worked
>for, visited, or even walked by, has been either a government site or a private
> organization.  Can you explain what you mean? 

 I can try :-) I suppose that I am trying to make the .gov .edu .com 
distinction with respect to regulation of email and news. Universities
and colleges may be public or private (both of course receiving govt
funding) but what I am referring to as a govt site might be something
like a government lab or office where one could argue that national
security is at stake and it is necessary to have tighter restrictions
and security on the flow of information in and out of the organization.
By "private site" I was referring to say IBM or Digital - a private
industry which may feel the need to make available only certain
news groups or not allow email out of their site unless checked
for security reasons (i.e. you don't want the source code for
your latest grand piece of work to be sent around the world). 

 Frankly, I haven't thought through policies at such organizations. I do
however feel that it is counter to the concepts and ideals of higher
education to put excessive limitations on the freedom of expression
of students at any University. The original policy stmt. which 
was posted referred to "annoying behavior" - to me that is a ridiculous
concept with which to try and enforce a policy - some of the most
 "annoying" individuals I've ever met in Computer Science were not
students - in fact they were often individuals who have the responsibility
of enacting these policies. I realize that any university has not
only the right but the responsibility to enforce rules which go beyond
those set by society (for example, I would hope that no one would
argue that an individual accused of attacking another student and
causing physical harm should be allowed to stay on campus until the
legal system decides to try him/her) but to argue that an individual
gives up his right to voice his opinions or to be "annoying" seems
absurd to me. It is counter to the concept of technology transfer
and extending existing knowledge to deny an indivual access to
resources because he did not voice a politically correct stmt. or
he sent email to some uptight old fart telling him to kiss off. 

 It seems to me that a simple, required disclaimer attatched to
news articles or even email stating that what is contained is
the opinion and views of the individual and are not meant in
anyway to represent the views etc. etc. of the organization, is
enough to cover the concerns that have been voiced with respect to
this issue. Again, I am not talking about actions which are clearly
illegal (physical threats  amongst others) or intended to damage
anothers properties (such as the examples of deleting someone else's
files or breaking into their account etc) I am simply speaking about
attempts to legislate what can or cannot be said by an individual
student when given access to resources by a dept. or university. 

 Here in the CS dept. at Arizona there are many many views on this. I
have spoken with faculty who feel strongly that the only acceptable
policy with respect to such restrictions is *no policy* at all. They
feel strongly that any attempt to limit this expression is counter
to everything that they believe in. Others feel strongly in the
other direction and would just as soon see email and especially
news access simply eliminated for students. Most, I think, fall somewhere
in between. I simply do not believe that anyone has the right to
remove or deny access to an individual because of ill-defined
terms such as "annoying" or "offensive". 

 To get back to your original question - I don't how or if my feelings 
extend to private industry or the government scetor - I haven't thought about
it enough although I am more than open to experiences or views that others
might have with respect to this issue.

 I do not know if I am "right" about this or even if there is an opinion
that is "right" at all. I know that if I were given the responsibility to
set a policy I would produce something similar to what our dept. requires
of students. It consists of a "contract" signed by students which lists
the terms and conditions of Account use. It is, in my opinion, pretty
specific about the use of resources when it comes to things such as
tinkering with another individuals account or files or attempting
to obtain another's password and so on. It covers file copying, quotas
printer use and various "off-limit" utilities. It does not, however, 
cover what is or is not "offensive" "annoying" or "obscene" and it
is backed up by simple security procedures such as key cards for the
various labs and precautions taken to secure all hardware and prevent
as much theft and damage as possible. I would probably extend our policy
to include a standard disclaimer on outgoing news articles but beyond 
that I would not try to legislate what an individual can or cannot say.
I also would not attempt  to claim the right to examine any files as I
see fit, without first obtaining the permission of the individual whose
files I intend to take a peek at. That does not mean that I cannot kill
a job that is "out of control" or that I can't monitor disk usage and
ask that quotas be maintained - it simply means that I am notr going to
go searching through a users files looking for things that I don't like
nor am I going to in anyway examine personal correspondance in the form
of electronic mail.


			gln