🚀 go-pugleaf

>kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>>Part C is especially unclear about how the restiction "depends" on the
>>nature of the charges. A staff member could read it and this that he
>>or she is suppose to punish users before it has been determined that
>>they have volated policy.

morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:

>Hmmmm....how about adding this?

>	"Any restrictions placed on your computing access must be 
>	 directly related to the charges filed against you.  Any
>	 restrictions must be approved by the Director of Engineering
>	 Computing prior to their initiation."
[...]

Let me make up a scenario. A user apperently sends a million lines of
"Wow! I sure can waste paper" to the laser printer." This wastes about
2000 pages of paper and $25 dollars worth of toner.

You bring him/her up on charges. (At the very least he or she should
have to pay for the waste and get a formal warning from the school.)

The question is, should you also prohibit the user from using the
printer while the case is pending? The policy as written seems to say
yes. But to me this seems that punishment before establishing guilt
(unless you really think the user is stupid enough to do it again
while awaiting a University hearing.)

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=