🚀 go-pugleaf

Carl> == Carl M. Kadie <kadie@eff.org> 

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

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

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

ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:

>I would say that a restriction like "can only print 100 pages a week"
>would be a reasonable reaction to that sort of abuse, without
>completely prohibiting the user from using the printer(s).  Restrictions
>are not necessarily all-or-nothing affairs.
[...]

On eff.org this might be wise. For one thing, your ability to
discipline users is much weaker than a university's.

But in a university context and assuming you are not going to put this
restriction on everyone and assuming that this was not part of a
punishment imposed by the university authorities, this restriction
seems more like a punishment than a necessary action to protect the
system.

A necessary action to protect the system is more like:
  A user complains that a giant print job is tying up the printer
  The operator confirms this
               kills the print job
               sees that the user who submitted it is no longer signed in
               gets authorization to disable that user's ability to print
               disables the user's ability to print
               sends email to the user telling what happened

Disabling printing is necessary because the sys admins think the print
job is likely to be resubmitted.

However, once the matter is discussed with the user, the print job is
not likely to be resubmitted. A restriction placed only on the user
now, seems more like a punishment.

ON THE OTHER HAND,
this doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it.

There is nothing in the law or in the principles of academic freedom
that says that minor punishments can only be imposed by the university
Judical Committee (there may or may not be something in the University
code). Such punishments are OK (in my opinion), if

1) they really are minor (Restricting use of the printer, or telnet,
or a game, for week or two, such that classwork is not effected, is,
IMHO, minor. Even short suspension from the computer or longer
restictions to services, is not, IMHO, minor).

2) they are imposed after the user gets a chance to speak

3) appeals are possible, the user is told how to appeal, punishment is
delayed if the user decides to appeal.

4) (opinional?) A report is given to users and the university every so
often (once a semester?) summarizing the punishments that were imposed
that period.

- 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=