From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:09:45 1995
From: kadie@sal (Fwd:)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [alt.censorship]  Re: Censorship at schools
Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:09:39 GMT
Message-ID: <3k1u8j$kpd@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>

[A repost - Carl]

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:09:45 1995
From: johnson@ripco.com (MKJohnson)
Subject:  Re: Censorship at schools
Message-ID: <D596K9.28C@rci.ripco.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 1995 01:52:56 GMT

We don't censor our students internet access, but I do get a copy at the end 
of each period which gives me a rundown on what they did do while on the net..


J Baillie (92003623@white.lambton.on.ca) wrote:
: Well going to another school really isn't an option... What do  you think I 
: am made of money or something.
: 				 Jamie

--
       \\\\///
       `(o o)`   "...and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set 
         \_/           you free..."
  --ooO -(_)--Ooo----------------------------------------------------------
        -----
================= end of repost ==================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
 = URL:   <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:10:22 1995
From: kadie@sal (Fwd:)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [alt.censorship]  Censorship at schools...
Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:10:16 GMT
Message-ID: <3k1u9o$kr4@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>

[A repost - Carl]

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:10:22 1995
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject:  Censorship at schools...
Date: 12 Mar 1995 23:43:10 -0500
Message-ID: <3k0igu$v7@white.lambton.on.ca>

Ok well what exactly do you expect a student to do...  I am one of very
few that will actually speak up against our admin.  Most of then are 
afraid to speak up because of retailiation. The system admin could and will
lock out our accounts.. I have had mine locked out once already but that 
won't stop me.  The system admin came up with this lame excuse that I was 
hacking the system or something, which is not true.  Anyways I got back
on about a week latter.   There are only a few other people that are willing
to say something to him about this topic.  And when I try to talk to him 
he says "That his opinion is the only one that counts" he refuses to listen
to the students views of the issue!.
					Jamie
================= end of repost ==================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
 = URL:   <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:10:37 1995
From: kadie@sal (Fwd:)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [soc.college.grad, et al.]  Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis
Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:10:30 GMT
Message-ID: <3k1ua6$ks2@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>

[A repost - Carl]

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:10:37 1995
Newsgroups: soc.college.grad,alt.censorship,memphis.general,tn.general
Subject:  Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis
Date: 11 Mar 1995 09:10:25 -0500
Message-ID: <3jsb0h$rle@anshar.shadow.net>


: With all the rhetoric aside, these guys knew they shouldn't have been
: doing what they did, and they did it anyway. These are _university_
: students. If they can't be a little more responsible, maybe they do
: need "a mommy" to censor their posts. 
 
All that aside why don't they go to the rival tv stations in the area and
see if anyone would be interest in running a story on how big bad tv 
station is for censorship?

As far as their own internet gate way is concern, if would be fun to pick 
up a commerce account and take the university to small claim court for
the amount of the fee on the theory that there is a implied contract with 
the students to provide an internet gateway as part of the tution fee.

Oh include the tv station in the small claim suite on the theory that 
their action interfere with a business relationship between the students 
and the college.

Made sure all the local papers and other tv station is inform about your 
suite.

In other word have fun with the situation and annoy the powers to be at 
the same time.

Regards,
Bill
================= end of repost ==================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
 = URL:   <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:11:11 1995
From: kadie@sal (Fwd:)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [alt.censorship, et al.]  Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis
Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:10:57 GMT
Message-ID: <3k1ub1$ktj@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>

[A repost - Carl]

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:11:11 1995
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,memphis.general,tn.general
Subject:  Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis
Message-ID: <1995Mar11.100019.39450@msuvx1.memphis.edu>
Date: 11 Mar 95 10:00:19 -0500

In article <794873617snz@crecon.demon.co.uk>, Octobersdad@crecon.demon.co.uk ("T. Bruce Tober") writes:
> In article <1995Mar9.125442.39209@msuvx1.memphis.edu>
>            mddallara@msuvx1.memphis.edu
>            "Mark Dallara, Biomedical Engineering" writes:
> 
>> 
>> 1. Why weren't the two students given warnings before such disciplinary action
>> was taken?  We do not have reminders about the Student Conduct Code, in fact
>> I don't remember anything about it when I received my vax account.  The
>> minimum courtesy the administration could extend is to talk to the students
>> before shutting them down.
> 
> Fair enuf question.
>> 
>> 2. Obscenity laws are subject to local standards.  How the fuck can they
> 
> Yep and the student in question posted the articles in question to
> the very local umem.* hierarchy you said. Whether it's on the net or
> not, doubtful anyone other than umem students, faculty, alum and some
> locals read those groups. A court would probably find that
> constitutes a local community standard.

Do you think the university would have reacted differently if the posting
had been to memphis.general or tn.general, which are both received outside
of the school?  How about if something was crossposted from umem.general
to soc.college?  It should NOT be considered a local community standard
just because of the distribution of those newsgroups.

I want to reiterate that I don't think obscenity laws should apply in any
sense to a medium which is NOT readily accessible to children, and is
NOT confined to one community or even one nation.  Any parents who
give their children 'Net access should be responsible for policing their
own kids' actions.  The 'Net cannot, should not, and will not be made 
childproof.

 
>> 
>> 3. Why should WREG-TV have that kind of weight with the campus administration?
>> Why the hell would they get that upset over some vulgar email?  ARe they THAT
>> insecure?  Would they have had such a sphincter fit if Hooper had sent them
> 
> I think most adults, especially with high visibility int he community
> and in the public eye as tv people tend to be, would be rather upset
> that someone forge messages on their account. More, than that, they
> would probably be outraged and very likely take the forger to court
> on that alone, but considering the posts were rather abusive in tone
> and language, I think you said, they would be that much more likely
> to do so.

The students in question are NOT accused of forging messages on anyone's
account.  The whole message was faked, and no one knows by whom.  Coleman
doesn't even have a Umem account.

 
> Also I suspect the tv station probably has some very important
> financial ties to the college.

BINGO.  Add in the fact that the school is almost neurotic lately in its
obsession with P.R.


>> a snailmail through the U.S. postal system instead of an email?
>> 
>> 4. Does the administration even realize how much 'obscene' material is 
>> available to the poor, weak, impressionable college students on the
>> global newsgroups?  I doubt it, they probably wouldn't know a uudecoder if
>> it jumped up and sodomized them.
> 
> You started out with what sounded a legitimate, well thought out,
> reasonable query. Now you're resorting to rant. I'm not at all sure
> you're for real or just flexing your young muscles, but it's not
> necessary and I personally think you haven't a leg to stand on in
> your anger.

I'm engaging in sarcasm because I wish to do so and it strikes me as 
humorous.  I make it a point to include profane language or an obscene
reference whenever discussing censorship.  I also wanted to point out that 
the vast majority of  administrators who set policy for Computer Services 
are nearly  'Net-illiterate, have no idea what 'Net users consider appropriate 
or inappropriate, and probably won't bother to find these things out, even
now.  I don't care if it's necessary, it suits my purposes, is good for
a laugh, and paints an image that will make the overly sensitive readers
twitch.

My basic points are, and have been...

1. Due process has been a joke in this situation

2. Information should belong to the author, not the infrastructure.

3. Standards vary from newsgroup to newsgroup.

4. Standards may vary from community to community, but the net community
   is global, therefore standards should be left up to the newsgroups,
   the IRC channels, the Web page authors, etc.

Sig seen on the 'net from an AT&T employee:

"Ever feel like you're being watched?  You will..."



-- 
Mark Dallara                    :  Whenever someone asks me to define love, 
Graduate Student	        :  I usually think for a minute, then I spin
Biomedical Engineering          :  around and pin the guy's arm behind his
University of Memphis           :  back.  NOW who's asking the questions?  
* Florida '93, Memphis '95 *    :     - "Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handey
--
================= end of repost ==================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
 = URL:   <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:12:07 1995
From: kadie@sal (Fwd:)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [soc.college.grad, et al.]  Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis
Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:11:41 GMT
Message-ID: <3k1ucd$l1h@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>

[A repost - Carl]

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:12:07 1995
Newsgroups: soc.college.grad,alt.censorship,memphis.general,tn.general
Subject:  Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis
Date: 11 Mar 1995 06:12:26 GMT
Message-ID: <3jrf0a$oj4@giga.bga.com>

Steven Cogorno (cogorno@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:


: You bet it gives them the right to censor communications. It is THEIR
: computer, and they own all of the information stored on its disks.
: The university is responsible for all messages on or that leave
: its system. Only common carriers (which no university is) are not
: held responsible for the action of its customers/users.  

1. Once again that pesky First Amendment keeps getting in the way of a 
university being able to do their job! They have no right to censor any 
of the communications.  

2.  The university owns none of the information stored on the disks.  That 
information belongs to the copyright holders of the e-mail, messages, and 
other files that are archived on the university computers.  Providing 
access and owning are two separate items.

3.  Academic freedom provides a bullet-proof shield of liability for 
these types of issues.  The irony over CMU, Univ of Pitt, and other 
incidences, is that universities are the *LEAST* likely to be held 
responsible for the actions of their students.  

: With all the rhetoric aside, these guys knew they shouldn't have been
: doing what they did, and they did it anyway. These are _university_
: students. If they can't be a little more responsible, maybe they do
: need "a mommy" to censor their posts. 

Wait a minute.  They broke no laws.  None whatsoever.  All they have done 
is engage in activities that embarassed university school officials.  Is 
that sufficient?


--
David Smith	          *  Calendar of way cool e-things:   
bladex@bga.com            *  Mar 15-17    SXSW Multimedia
President, EFF-Austin     *  Mon Mar 20th EFF-Austin General Meeting
Board of Directors, CTCLU *  April 1-2    Robofest
================= end of repost ==================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
 = URL:   <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:12:19 1995
From: kadie@sal (Fwd:)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [soc.college.grad, et al.]  Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis
Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:12:00 GMT
Message-ID: <3k1ud0$l34@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>

[A repost - Carl]

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:12:19 1995
Newsgroups: soc.college.grad,alt.censorship,memphis.general,tn.general
Subject:  Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis
Date: 12 Mar 1995 07:59:37 -0800
Message-ID: <3jv5p9$ltp@crl2.crl.com>


In article <3jnv1s$n3a@panix.com>, 
o0l1@panix.com (Alan J. Munn) said:

> The director of the computer center of the graduate school of the City
> University of New York (Joan Sheridan), justifying her action by an
> alleged rule against obscenity, shut down a soft-core pornography WWW
> home page (that did not have any pornography of its own, but had
> hyperlinks to soft-core pornography already on the Web), and punished
> its author.  She explained that the page had damaged the graduate
> school's reputation.  The reaction (at the graduate school's computer
> center) seems different from the reaction at Memphis.  At the computer
> center, the staff applauds her common sense and respect for academic
> freedom.  If you are one of the people whose esteem for the graduate
> school declined because of the home page, you may wish to reevaluate
> the graduate school now that the home page is gone.

This is a joke, right?

My respect for a school is supposed to go _down_ when it allows a
student to maintain a home page that contains accurate information,
and _up_ when the school deletes that page?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@crl.com>

================= end of repost ==================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
 = URL:   <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:12:28 1995
From: kadie@sal (Fwd:)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [soc.college.grad, et al.]  Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis
Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:12:16 GMT
Message-ID: <3k1udg$l46@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>

[A repost - Carl]

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:12:28 1995
Newsgroups: soc.college.grad,alt.censorship,memphis.general,tn.general
Subject:  Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis
Date: 12 Mar 1995 06:17:45 GMT
Message-ID: <3ju3m9$vaj@isdnlin.mtsu.edu>

Steven Cogorno (cogorno@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:

: In article <1995Mar9.230549.39277@msuvx1.memphis.edu> mddallara@msuvx1.memphis.edu writes:

: With all the rhetoric aside, these guys knew they shouldn't have been
: doing what they did, and they did it anyway. These are _university_
: students. If they can't be a little more responsible, maybe they do
: need "a mommy" to censor their posts. 

Who is to decide what is appropriate?  Bible thumpers?  

There is a simple way to fix this.  Like on most parts of the Internet, 
if you do not like it do not read/go_there.  If that does not work, then 
flame them personally in e-mail.
 
Mr. Winc.

( just put these ppl in your kill file and they will never be there again )

================= end of repost ==================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
 = URL:   <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:14:58 1995
From: kadie@sal (Fwd:)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [alt.censorship]  Colleges That Censors.
Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:14:28 GMT
Message-ID: <3k1uhk$ld2@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>

[A repost - Carl]

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:14:58 1995
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject:  Colleges That Censors.
Date: 11 Mar 1995 20:06:25 -0500
Message-ID: <3jtheh$hfi@white.lambton.on.ca>


                  REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USE OF
                LAMBTON COLLEGE COMPUTING FACILITIES 
    
    
    Intended Use of Resources
    
      Computing and communications facilities of Lambton College,
    including the on-campus and off-campus mechanisms by which they are
    interconnected and accessed, exist to support the instructional,
    administrative and research tasks that exist for the use of each of
    these facilities.

      Computer time is a valuable college resource which must be shared
    by the entire College community.  Misuse or wasteful use of this
    resource is subject to discipline according to college policy.
    It is recognized that most users are responsible and use  the
    facilities as they are intended.   However, irresponsible actions
    by a few may cause difficulties for the majority.
    
    
    Definitions of Terms
    
      Facility:  Any form of computing system, communication system  
         (data, voice, image), premises housing such a system, premises
         housing devices for accessing and using such a system.
    
      User:  An individual authorized to use all or part of the
         facility.
    
      Userid:  The name assigned to an authorized user.  (For students,
         this name is their student number.)
    
      Authorized Use:  Use of a computing facility solely for educational
         purposes directly related to a program or course in which students
         are enrolled.
    
    
    Fair Warning Concept
    
      The users of a facility have the right to fair warning concerning
    these regulations. Either of the following constitutes such fair
    warning: 
    
      1. When "logging on" to a computer system a message may be
         displayed on the screen notifying the user that by continuing he/she
         is accepting the regulations.
    
      2. A copy of the regulations will be posted in all computer rooms.
    
    
    User Responsibilities:
    
      1. Maintain confidentiality of passwords.
      2. Use the facility in a reasonable and responsible manner.
      3. Be aware of limitations on access to computer labs. Students 
         may not enter a lab which has a class scheduled in it, without 
         the permission of the person teaching the lab.
      4. Report any abuse of the facility to the Computer Services    
         Department as soon as possible.
      5. Report any hardware or software problems to the Computer     
         Services Department as soon as possible.  A "Computer Problem 
         Report" should be completed, giving full particulars of the  
         problem.  (Copies of this form are in all computer labs.)
      6. Must not use illegal copies of computer software on College  
         computer equipment.
      7. User's must be prepared to provide "current College
         identification" on request.
    
    Misuse of Computing Resources
    
      The production of non-course-related materials such as banners,
    signs, sports polls and games which consume the College computer
    resources or occupies terminal seats is not allowed.
    
    Deliberately wasteful practices are not allowed, such as:
       - unnecessarily large printer listings 
       - unnecessary compilations of programs 
       - creation and retention of unnecessary files
       - unauthorized reservation of terminals or computers  
    
      The College has legal licenses for all software installed on
    equipment.  This software is for use on college equipment only. 
    Making copies of any college software is illegal.  Users caught
    taking copies will be subject to college disciplinary action.
    
    
    Purpose of Facility Use
    
      System resources are not for commercial use or personal gain.
     
      Users' computer accounts are for College-related activities only.
    
    
    Privacy of Computer Files
    
      A user must remain within the bounds of his/her own account. 
    Going beyond these bounds includes perusal of system files and
    accounts, other users' accounts and using other individuals'
    passwords.  Users must not access or copy files and directories
    belonging to other users or to Lambton College unless they have
    prior written authorization to do so.
    
      Files and programs administered by the College Computer Centre
    may not be taken to any other computer sites without the  written
    permission of the Computer Services Department.
    
    
    Respect for System Security
    
      Stay within the bounds of the system security.  Deliberate
    attempts to bypass system security, tampering, malicious damage and
    actions detrimental to other system users are not permitted.
    
      Any action or attempt by any individual to subvert or disrupt the
    intended functioning of any facility is prohibited.
    
      No person or persons shall by any wilful or deliberate act,
    jeopardize the integrity of the computing equipment, its systems
    programs or other stored information.
    
    
    Security Related Procedures
    
      Produce valid College identification (student or staff card) upon
    request.
    
      Immediately report suspected unauthorized use of your account to
    Computer Services Department.
    
      Immediately report hardware problems to Computer Services
    Department.
    
      Exercise appropriate measures to maintain the confidentiality of
    confidential information acquired through computer access.  
    
      Every person authorized to use computing resources shall be
    expected to treat as privileged, any information not provided or
    generated by him/herself which may become available to him/her
    through his/her use of computing resources; he/she shall not copy,
    modify, disseminate or use any part of it without permission of the
    appropriate person or body. 
    
      Users must not use the facility to create or transmit information
    that is obscene, threatening or harassing.
    
      Users are expected to adhere to the requests of College monitors
    who oversee facilities. 
    
      For safety reasons, children who are not registered as students
    must be accompanied by an adult and are not allowed to touch any of
    the computer equipment, nor are they allowed to roam freely about
    the facility.  Users accompanied by children are expected to adhere
    to these requests.   
    
      The consumption of food or drink in the facility is prohibited. 
    
      Lack of system protection to a facility does not constitute
    permission to use it.
    
      Users must not attempt unauthorized access to computer
    installations outside of Lambton College using Lambton College's
    computers communications facilities.
    
      Users must identify their computer work with their own names.
    
    
    Discipline
    
      Any violation of these regulations will be disciplined in
    accordance with existing College Policy.
================= end of repost ==================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
 = URL:   <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:15:34 1995
From: kadie@sal (Fwd:)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [alt.censorship]  Colleges That Censors.
Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:15:21 GMT
Message-ID: <3k1uj9$lfp@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>

[A repost - Carl]

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:15:34 1995
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject:  Colleges That Censors.
Date: 11 Mar 1995 20:07:46 -0500
Message-ID: <3jthh2$hjo@white.lambton.on.ca>


Subject: Colleges That Censors.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Summary: 
Keywords: 

   This message was written to me by Bill Smith (w.smith@ix.netcom.com)
and I am reposting the message the usenet.  My response will follow in 
the next message.

Which, if any, of these regulations do you see as "silly."  Most of them 
sound perfectly reasonable to me.  I do not see anything silly or 
censorious in an educational institution attempting to restrict use of 
its computers to educational purposes, or for the institution to define 
what it will consider to be "educational purposes."

It's true, a too narrow definition of "education purposes" could lead to 
some silliness, but I don't see that in the regulations you posted. 
================= end of repost ==================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
 = URL:   <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:15:54 1995
From: kadie@sal (Fwd:)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [alt.censorship]  Colleges That Censors.
Date: 13 Mar 1995 17:15:33 GMT
Message-ID: <3k1ujl$lgd@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>

[A repost - Carl]

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:15:54 1995
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject:  Colleges That Censors.
Date: 11 Mar 1995 20:10:21 -0500
Message-ID: <3jthlt$hmo@white.lambton.on.ca>




On Sat, 11 Mar 1995, Bill Smith wrote:

> You wrote: 
> 
> >
> >
> >                  REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USE OF
> >                LAMBTON COLLEGE COMPUTING FACILITIES 
> Which, if any, of these regulations do you see as "silly."  Most of them 
> sound perfectly reasonable to me.  I do not see anything silly or 
> censorious in an educational institution attempting to restrict use of 
> its computers to educational purposes, or for the institution to define 
> what it will consider to be "educational purposes."
> 
> It's true, a too narrow definition of "education purposes" could lead to 
> some silliness, but I don't see that in the regulations you posted. 

Well it really isn't the rules them selves that are silly. It is the way 
that they are twisting the rules to meet there needs and how they are 
setting a double standard, One for the teachers and one for the 
students.. The only reason why is is being done is because they are 
finding that there computer is no longer adquate to meet the growing need 
of the internet users.. There is nothing wrong with what we are doing.. 
We are not doing anything illegal we are just inter-acting with other 
people on various chatlines, and other mud's, moo's, mushes ect. The 
teachers are allowed to use the system for there own personal needs but 
yet the students are not.. NOW THAT IS CENSORSHIP!.  Wake up will you!.. 
Just because you are on a site that doesn't censor that doesn't mean it 
doesn't happen out here.. I am really ticked off about how the students 
get treated here compared to the teachers!.
				Jamie
================= end of repost ==================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
 = URL:   <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 12:21:01 1995
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,can.general,mb.general,can.infohighway,alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,soc.culture.canad
From: mshields@bull.ca (mshields)
Subject: Re: Canada's Cyberspace - Wild West or Prudish Prairies ?
Message-ID: <1995Mar13.171507.12001@bullns.on01.bull.ca>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 17:15:07 GMT

In article <3jg5th$8mg@insight.dcss.mcmaster.ca>, djones@insight.mcmaster.ca (David Jones) says:

[some deleted]
>
>[repost from efc-talk]
>
>  Wild West or Prudish Prairies?
>
>Advocates of free speech may cringe at the chill that seems to be growing
>in Winnipeg.  Canada's wild west is looking pretty prudish these days.
>
>Recently, Mr. Pagtakhan, MP for Winnipeg-North, introduced a private
>members motion in Parliament calling for some limits to be placed
>on what can be communicated through computer networks. [1]
>
>In a move that seems related to this sentiment, an internet service provider
>called "Magic Online Services" (http://www.magic.mb.ca) has recently dropped
>about 20 newsgroups from their Usenet service.  Most of the newsgroups were
>from the "alt.sex.*" hierarchy.
>
>The decision to censor was made following conversations between Magic staff
>and the RCMP.  Apparently the RCMP advised that there were some legal
>concerns about some of the articles in some of the "sex" newsgroups.
>Whatever was said, it was enough to prompt the removal of several newsgroups.
>
[more deleted]

Yet another dreary example of how this is an issue about POWER, not "legal
concerns" or anything else. The truth is, those who currently have control over
the means of communication (e.g. the government, pro-censorship lobby groups,
Ted Rogers, the TV networks, spy agencies and the phone companies) are terrified
of the Internet: for the first time, ordinary people have a means of communication
that (so far at least) they can't completely censor or control. To a spy, or a
RCMP bureaucrat, or the Legion for Decency, this is a profoundly disturbing
concept, since it in effect transfers power from them to ordinary Internet users.

You can bet that these people aren't going to give up control, and power, without
a fight; the recent developments in Manitoba, the Thomas case in Tennessee, the
Clipper Chip and U.S. Senate bill S.314 are all examples of the power elite trying
desperately to put a stop to citizen and consumer control over the means of
communication. These people aren't stupid- they know that their ability to keep
control over society rests upon their ability to suppress alternative points of
view, particularly sexual and political subcultures, while maintaining the fiction
of "freedom of speech" (for anyone who can afford a TV station, that is).

They know what their interests are, and they know that they're the opposite of the
interests of the average Internet user.

Let's keep that in mind when we hear statements by folks such as Mr. Pagtakhan.

M.Shields
mshields@bull.ca


From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 14:54:04 1995
From: kadie@sal (Fwd:)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: [alt.wired]  Jake Baker Panel (Mackinnon) transcript available
Date: 13 Mar 1995 19:36:28 GMT
Message-ID: <3k26rs$bs2@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>

[A repost - Carl]

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 14:54:04 1995
Newsgroups: alt.wired
Subject:  Jake Baker Panel (Mackinnon) transcript available
Date: 11 Mar 1995 08:33:06 GMT
Message-ID: <3jrn82$5l6@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>


The Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review held a panel (to
an over-full auditorium) on Thursday night with Catharine Mackinnon, Barry
Steinhardt, Scott Charney, and others on the forefront of the Internet 
and the First Amendment.  The panel was called "Beyond Jake Baker--Policing 
the Internet". 

Some very interesting things were said, and new light was shed on the 
Baker case. The transcript of the panel is now available at 
http://www.umich.edu/~umlaw/mttlr.html





--
=====================================================================
Andrew P. Boer	   University of Michigan Law School (2L)    MTTLR
		Http://www.umich.edu/~aboer/	           
     			Aboer@umich.edu			   
====================================================================

================= end of repost ==================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
 = URL:   <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>

From caf-talk Caf Mar 13 21:14:11 1995
From: fixyourpc@aol.com (FIXYOURPC)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: acad conversion
Date: 13 Mar 1995 21:04:39 -0500
Message-ID: <3k2tjn$fo3@newsbf02.news.aol.com>

I'm looking for anyone who has information on converting a HP-SCANJET
output to a acad format.  what formats are convertible and what software
do I need.

e-mail me at dspooner@clark.net or FIXYOURPC@aol.com

From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 08:25:07 1995
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: John@longevb.demon.co.uk (John de Rivaz)
Subject: Re: CREATIONISM REVISITED
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 13:07:12 +0000
Message-ID: <249125451wnr@longevb.demon.co.uk>

The answer to your question is because some religious people like to use the 
force of law and government to impose their views. That is the real freedom 
issue. My postings are designed to show that such force cannot ultimately 
work, just as the Roman Empire couldn't use similar force to *suppress* 
Christianity. 

Chaos theory shows that government doesn't work for sound scientific 
reasons. Some people say that the Communists, who payed great attention to 
science and logic, gave up when they realised this.

reference: Chance and Chaos by David Ruelle, Princetown University, ISBN 
0-691-02100-7


In article: <1995Mar8.123653.43312@orion.bsuvc.bsu.edu>  
00hfstahlke@bsuvc.bsu.edu (Herb Stahlke) writes:
> In article <474011672wnr@longevb.demon.co.uk>, John@longevb.demon.co.uk 
(John de Rivaz) writes:
> > Magnify the Mandelbrot set a few hundred times, and look at the 
complexity. 
> > Apply the same reasoning to them.
> > 
> 
> This is not a flame--just idle curiousity.  Why is this discussion
> going on on this newsgroup?
> 
> Herb
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> + Herbert Stahlke, Ph.D.	  ||   Email:  00HFSTAHLKE@BSU.EDU +
> + Associate Director              ||       or  HSTAHLKE@BSU.EDU    +
> + University Computing Services   ||                               +
> + Professor of English            ||   Phone:  317-285-1843        + 
> + Ball State University 	  ||   Fax:  317-285-1797          + 
> + Muncie, IN  47306               ||                               + 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> 
-- 
Sincerely,     ****************************************       
               * Publisher of        Longevity Report *
John de Rivaz  *                     Fractal Report   *
               *          details on request          *
               ****************************************
**** What is the point of life if it ends in death? ****


From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 11:37:48 1995
From: kender@esu.edu (Daniel Garcia)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: stopping the spread of electronic pron?
Date: 14 Mar 1995 11:37:47 -0500
Message-ID: <9503141640.AA09239@babbage.esu.edu.795199065>

I have recently become aware of my state senate making inquiries as to
what our state system of schools is doing to stop the 'spread' of
electronic pornography.  I have already resonded to them with a technical
argument about the infeasability of trying to screen everything that comes
in via news, ftp, email, etc... for porn.

Now, I am lookig for other arguments as well, legal arguments, cases where
schools have tried and lost in court (or won, i don need to present all
sides here, er do need :), policies of other schools, etc...  I looked on
the caf archive at eff briefly, but still wasn't terribly sre on things.

Note that for the record, I feel e-porn to be a masive waste of bandwidth,
but i worry about what door's are opened if a precedent gets set herer
(i.e. well, first amendment doesn't apply to porn, opens the door for
first amedment doesn't apply to political views, or even worse, the first
amendmen doesn't apply *shudder*).

THanks in advance for any pointers you can offer.

Daniel Garcia,


--
   ___________________________________________________________________________
  /Daniel Garcia/Soon to be PhD Student/Virtual Environments /kender@esu.edu /
 /Linux  Hacker/C Programmer for Hire /#include <disclaimer>/The Answer's 42/|
,-------------+----------------------+---------------------+-------------- + /
|This sig was randomly generated for your viewing and reading pleasure.... |/
`------------------------http://www.esu.edu/~kender------------------------'


From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 12:44:20 1995
From: mankind@rain.org ()
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Computer Bounty Hunter!
Date: 14 Mar 1995 17:33:44 GMT
Message-ID: <3k4k1o$l4o@news.rain.org>

Feeling encumbered, I read the Logbook of a Computer Bounty Hunter.  He 
explains the techniques available to guarantee individual rights.  
Available on network386@aol.com.  Check it out
--
Mankind@Rain.org

From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 13:44:54 1995
From: kadie@sal (Fwd:)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk]  JANET censorship
Date: 14 Mar 1995 18:41:26 GMT
Message-ID: <3k4o0m$491@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>

[A repost - Carl]

From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 13:44:54 1995
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject:  JANET censorship
Date: 14 Mar 1995 17:07:18 GMT
Message-ID: <3k4ig6$han@macondo.dmu.ac.uk>

I'm not sure if this is exactly the correct group.


  Does anyone know who to get in touch with regarding
the censorship of usenet by JANET as it enters the UK.
I would like a good excuse from them as i can see no reason
why they are limiting our access and censoring newsgroups and
threads.  eg. alt.sex is completely blocked and i'm not sure if
this is by janet or whoever feeds our main site.  I mean, we are all
at least 18 years old here, so what are they "protecting" us from?
  There are loads of other restricted threads and i would just like
to know why thats all.

Ta. 
Stu. H.

================= end of repost ==================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
 = URL:   <ftp://ftp.cs.uiuc.edu/pub/kadie/>

From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 16:02:57 1995
From: ajl@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE (Arne J. Ludwig)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Is this harassment?
Date: 14 Mar 1995 20:46:38 GMT
Message-ID: <3k4vbe$rna@news.duke.edu>

I know this group is not completely appropriate for my question,
but it may be of interest to you anyway.

On Friday I sent a little note to a coworker where I asked if she
wanted to have sex with me. It was put in a humorous way and (for
a mature human being) there should have been no problem to simply
say "no" to settle the matter. The note was intended to remove the
tension between us and "break the ice".

Certainly this note was in bad taste and inappropriate especially
here in America (I've used that note without adverse effects in
another country before), where sexual harassment is a sensitive
issue. I wasn't completely aware of this cultural difference at
the time.

The woman reacted very unexpectedly, so I immediately apologized
to her and intend to write a formal letter of apology. (She left
to California for the spring break.)

However, the woman filed a formal complaint and the response from
my supervisor was to fire me (effective immediately). He said that
I could try to argue with the Chairman of the Department but added
that it would probably be of no use.

I think the severity of this incident does in no way warrant the
reaction and I do intend to fight the decision.

I'd appreciate any comments from the net community.

Arne

From caf-talk Caf Mar 14 17:02:26 1995
From: feld@cc.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: acad conversion
Date: 14 Mar 1995 21:23:31 GMT
Message-ID: <3k51gj$c7a@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>

In article <3k2tjn$fo3@newsbf02.news.aol.com> fixyourpc@aol.com (FIXYOURPC) writes:
>I'm looking for anyone who has information on converting a HP-SCANJET
>output to a acad format.  what formats are convertible and what software
>do I need.
>
>e-mail me at dspooner@clark.net or FIXYOURPC@aol.com


-- 
Michael Feld                  | E-mail: <feld@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy           | FAX: (204) 275-2411
University of Manitoba        | Voice: (604) 733-8134
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada

From caf-talk Caf Mar 15 11:03:11 1995
From: mfeld@unixg.ubc.ca (Michael Feld)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: acad conversion
Date: 15 Mar 1995 16:02:41 GMT
Message-ID: <3k7331$h9h@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>

>In article <3k2tjn$fo3@newsbf02.news.aol.com> fixyourpc@aol.com (FIXYOURPC) writes:
>>I'm looking for anyone who has information on converting a HP-SCANJET
>>output to a acad format.  what formats are convertible and what software
>>do I need.
>>

Imagine my disappointment, on seeing that the "acads" he has in mind
to convert are neither academicians nor Acadians (nor Arcadians,
neither).

Imagine my hurt.
-
-- 
Michael Feld		| E-mail: mfeld@unixg.ubc.ca
c/o Philosophy Dept.	| FAX:    (604) 822-8782
UBC, Vancouver, BC	| Voice:  (604) 733-8134
V6T 1Z1                  

From caf-talk Caf Mar 15 17:08:43 1995
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: anonymous@freezone.remailer (anonymous)
Subject: Censorship at schools...
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 05:07:47 +0000
Message-ID: <199503152107.AA20254@bolero.rahul.net>

 -=> Quoting Kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu to All <=-

 Ka> @SUBJECT:[alt.censorship]  Censorship at schools...                 
 Ka> Message-ID: <3jkp1c$hto@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
 Ka> Newsgroup: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
 Ka> Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

 Ka> [A repost - Carl]

 Ka> From: 92003623@white.lambton.on.ca (J Baillie)
 Ka> Newsgroups: alt.censorship
 Ka> Subject:  Censorship at schools...
 Ka> Date: 6 Mar 1995 22:10:38 -0500
 Ka> Message-ID: <3jgire$ggd@white.lambton.on.ca>


 Ka> q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?

 Ka> a: Yes. Free inquiry and free expression are an important part of a
 Ka> university's mission. Most universities encourage and support student
 Ka> expression and publication. Most universities also seem to give full
 Ka> network access to all users, even students. (This conclusion is based
 Ka> on an informal survey posted to comp.admin.policy in October, 1991.
 Ka> [cafv01n33])

 Ka> Ya well I wish some one would tell them that up here in Canada!. The
 Ka> admins at our college doesn't seem to agree with that. They censor what
 Ka> news groups the school recieves and now that the internet is growing at
 Ka> our college our admin is trying to scare the students away from using
 Ka> the internet.  At our site our admin keeps making threats that he is
 Ka> going to perminatly  block all the students from the internet (no
 Ka> FTP'S or TELNET'S) they already limit what news areas we are allowed to
 Ka> read. Geez what is next, I hope he doesn't do the block on the TELNET
 Ka> and FTP command. Another thing he said he was  going to do is put a
 Ka> disk quota so low that none of the students could store anything he was
 Ka> also going to put a cpu quota on our server. What exactly  can the
 Ka> students do against an admin like this one. Considering what he is
 Ka> thinking about doing is an exrtreme case of CENSORSHIP. Jamie

 As usual,  there goes Jamie Baillie <92003623@white.lambton.on.ca>,
 whining again.... why don't you give us all a break, eh Jamie?

 It's funny that no one else at Lambton College seems to be concerned
 about this alleged censorship issue--have you got any evidence to back
 up your claims with?  Anything at all?

 Given your history, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the sysadmins at
 Lambton College were trying to put some limits on your access.....

 For those who are unaware of his history, here's a thumbnail sketch:

 Mr. Baillie at one time ran a bulletin board in Sarnia, the town where
 he lives.  He violated a publication ban on the infamous Homolka case,
 by using the userids and passwords of former users of his bulletin
 board service, to upload the banned information onto several other
 local bulletin boards.

 As the official investigation report filed by Sarnia police constable
 R. Vandam states:

     "He admitted that he had uploaded the information a number of
     times on different local bulletin boards and that he had
     used the names and passwords of persons who had formerly
     subscribed to his bulletin board last year."

 The users of his bulletin board trusted him, and he clearly violated
 that trust--if things had turned out differently, one of the users
 whose id and password he misused might very well have found themselves
 the object of a police investigation.

 Given Baillie's history, I wouldn't trust anything he says; he's
 already demonstrated that his ethics are in the toilet....





From caf-talk Caf Mar 15 20:09:03 1995
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.politics.datahighway,comp.org.cpsr.talk
From: board@lava.nrtc.northrop.com (Ian Board )
Subject: Re: Communications Decency Act of 1995 - Carriers Liable for Content?
Message-ID: <D5I4LC.AxM@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 21:48:47 GMT

In article <3jj6v4$gta@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
Andrew C Bulhak <acb@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>Soundwave [ASTEK] (cgould@gate.net) wrote:
>
>: So what are they going to do? Try and shut down the whole network or
>: something? Prosecute all those carrying such material (which means
>: shutting down a good portion of the network)? Turn the network into some
>: Prodigy clone, where it's nicely graphical, expensive, and is littered
>: with professional advertisements?
>
>First, they get the law passed.
>
>Then they tell everyone to watch themselves. The big boys (CIS, AOL, etc.)
>employ censors to vet Usenet and cut off access to uncensorable things like
>IRC.
>
>Then they pick a few small providers at random, raid them, seize their
>assets and jail them. All of a sudden, most sites get scared and comply,m
>with the exception of a few sites which are so far downstream that they
>don't make a difference. This means that sites which cannot afford to have
>a staff of censors monitoring and moderating all of USENET will have to
>deny access to USENET altogether.
>
>Note that this will also either kill UNIX-based sites or cause stringent
>restrictions to be built into them so that users cannot write programs to
>open sockets to other sites and transmit pornography. In other words,
>everything will look a lot more like VMS.
>
>-- 
>      Andrew Bulhak  acb@cs.monash.edu.au  acb@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
>           Which part of "Cthulhu fhtagn" don't you understand?


Looked at this way, it seems VERY MUCH in the interests of the large providers
to get this law passed. I never considered the monopoly promoting aspect 
of the legislation before. As someone who once had an account with one
of the big providers and abandoned them in disgust, I hope this scenario 
never happens.


From caf-talk Caf Mar 15 21:04:34 1995
From: JD16@ix.netcom.com (Jonathan Hiler)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: ****FAST CASH--EASY AND LEGAL*****
Date: 15 Mar 1995 21:04:31 -0500
Message-ID: <3k868t$slt@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com.795319469>

PLEASE LISTEN BEFORE YOU START FLAMING ME GET IGNORED SEVERELY.  I 
THOUGHT THESE THINGS WERE SCAMS ALSO BUT IN THE LAST WEEK I RECIEVED 
$50,000 IN THE MAIL FROM PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD.  I DON'T KNOW ABOUT
PRYAMID SCHEMES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BUT I DO KNOW I MADE $50,000 AND 
ALL I GAVE WAS 5. I WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO JOIN IN MY GOOD FORTUNE!!!

                      INSTRUCTIONS

Follow these instructions EXACTLY, and in 20 to 60 days you will have 
received over $50,000 dollars in CASH.

1)  Immediately mail $1.00 to the first 5 names listed below, starting 
at number 1 through number 5.  SEND CASH ONLY.  (Total investment:  
$5.00)  ENCLOSE A LETTER WITH A NOTE SAYING:  "Please add my name to 
your mailing list."
Include your name and mailing address.

**This is a legitimate service that you are requesting and you are 
paying $1.00 for this service.***

2)  Remove the name that appears as number 1 on the list.  Move the 
other 9 names up on postion (Number 2 becomes number 1, number 3 becomes 
number 2, and so on).  Place your name, address, and zip code in the 
number 10 position.

3)  With your name in the number 10 position, upload this ENTIRE FILE to 
15 different bulletin boards or newsgroups.  You may it to the BB's 
message base or to the file section.  Name it FASTCASH.TXT, and use the 
file description comments to drew attention to this file and its great 
potential for all of us.

4)  Within 60 days you will receive over $50,000.00 in CASH.

Keep a copy of this file for yourself so that you can use it again and 
again whenever you need money.  As soon as you mail out these letters 
you are automatically in the mail order business.  People will be 
sending $1.00 to be placed on your mailing list.  
This list can then be rented to a broker that can be found in your local 
yellow pages listings for additional income on a regular basis.

The list will become more valuable as it grows in size.

This is a service.  **IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL**
If you have any doubts as to the legality of this service, please refer 
to Title 18, hSections 1302 and 1341 of the Postal Lottery Laws.

NOTE:  Make sure that you retain EVERY name and address sent to you, 
either on computer or hard copy, but do not discard the names and notes 
that people send to you.  This is PROOF that you are truly providing a 
service, and should the I.R.S. or some other government agency question 
you, you can provide them with this proof!

Remember, as each post is downloaded and the instructions carefully 
followed, five members will be reimbursed for their participation as 
List Developer with $1.00 each.  Your name will move up the list 
geometrically so that when your name reaches the number 5 position you 
will be receiving thousands of dollars in cash.
REMEMBER- THIS PROGRAM FAILS ONLY IF YOU ARE NOT HONEST- 
PLEASE, PLEASE BE HONORABLE.. IT DOES WORK!!! THANK YOU.

1.  Wes Schoppe  1507 Sage Boot  Pflugerville, TX   78660
2.  Brenda Benzer  PO Box 1084  Austin, TX  78767
3.  Corine Yonkers  5401 Avenue F  Austin, TX  78751
4.  Scott Robert  14619 Kiwanis Dr  Newbury, OH  44065
5.  Marty LaJoy  2355 Murray Hill Rd. #440D  Cleveland, OH  44106
6.  Jose Jimanez  2355 Murray Hill Rd. #440H  Cleveland, OH 44106
7.  Charles Cross  502 O'Shaugnessy Hall  Virginia Tech
                                          Blacksburg, VA  24060
8.  Haris Sarantis  5352 Appian Way  Long Beach, CA  90803
9.  Robert Sustar  458 Grace Watson  Rochester, NY  14623
10. Jonathan Hiler  2038 Surrey Ln  Roanoke, VA  24012


The following letter was written by a participating member in this 
program.
*****************************************************************
To those with the COMMON SENSE to participate in this easy money 
opportunity:

About six months ago I received the enclosed post in letter form.  I 
ignored it.  I received about five more of the same letters within the 
next two weeks.  I ignored them also.  Of course, I was tempted to 
follow through and dreamed of making thousands, but I was convinced it 
was just another gimmick and could not possibly work.

I was wrong!  About three weeks later I saw this same letter posted on a 
local bulletin board in Montreal.  I liked the idea of giving it a try 
with my computer.  I didn't expect much because I figured, if other 
people were as skeptical as I, they would not be too quick to part with 
$5.00.  But, I buy lottery tickets weekly in my provine and have nothing 
to show for it but ticket stubs.  This week I decided to look at this as 
my weekly lottery purchase.  I addressed the envelopes and mailed out 
$1.00 in each as directed.  Two weeks went by and I didn't receive 
anything in the mail.  The fourth week rolled around and I couldn't 
beleive what happened!  I can't say that I received $50,000 but it was 
well over $35,000!  For the first time in 10 years I got out of debt.  
It was great!  Of course, it didn't take me long to go through my 
earnings so I am using this excellent money making opportunity once 
again.  FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AND GET READY TO ENJOY! 

Please send a copy of this letter along with the enclose letter so 
together we can convince people who are skeptical that this really does 
work!!!!
                     Good Luck,
                      Charles Kust


From caf-talk Caf Mar 16 01:17:14 1995
From: dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet,alt.wired,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.individualism
Subject: The freedom of USENET is at hand, please read this.
Date: 15 Mar 1995 22:16:49 -0800
Message-ID: <3k8l4h$ioc@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov>

*** IMPORTANT. THE FREEDOM OF USENET IS AT HAND. ***

Help protect the freedom of usenet. Read this message.

[*] What's going on?

A small committee of 4 proposes to pass de-facto judgement on all
issues of "abuse" on USENET, by using a moderated group to provide
what they claim will be "information" on net abuse. Worst of all,
the committee has the right to change their charter by a majority
vote of the committee itself.

[*] Why is this bad?

There are a few reasons, listed from the most important to the least
important. 

1) The charter directly says:

       Any rule changes will be made by majority of the moderators.

Note what the above statement means. Once you've voted the group in,
they can change the charter out from under you and do things anyway
they want. This alone should be enough reason to vote NO on such a
proposal, especially when it deals with net abuse.

2) During discussion of this newsgroup, several questions were
raised which were not answered by the proponents. In particular:

-Questions about the determination of standards for "what is abuse"
were sidestepped. The fact is that it will be the unaided judgement
of the moderators, operating under unspecified rules, unaccountable
to anyone. Plus, with the clause above, they can change their own 
standard on their whim.

-The need for some recourse, or right to confront unjust accusations
of abuse had been recognized, but the solution proposed is woefully
inadequate. Questions about changing this recourse were not
answered. In particular, if your account is closed due to a claim 
of abuse, you have *no* way of replying. 

-The moderated group may be a way to promote abusive behavior on a
scale which we have not yet seen. If someone is clever enough to
fool one of the moderators with a forgery, then it could be you that
has your reputation destroyed and your account cancelled. Questions
about this state of affairs were met with a total absolving of
responsibility by the moderators. From the charter:

       The moderators of this group should not be held
       responsible for actions taken by others in response to
       articles posted to news.admin.net-abuse.announce.

And yet Joel Furr, a proposed moderator, says (in public):

       And speaking for the other proposed moderators, the *last* 
       thing any of us are going to do is speak out on spamming in 
       our capacities as moderators, if the group passes.  We know 
       better than to get mixed up in bullshit like that if we're 
       in some way in a position to be pointed at as authorities.

So they _are_ claiming to be authorities, and hence they want to 
have the posting be treated as official, despite what their charter 
says.

3) Tale@uunet is a good example of what happens when a moderator is
given power. He has "de facto" power over newsgroup creation by
being the moderator of the newsgroup that posts messages pertaining
to the creation process of big 7 newsgroups.  Because of this, Tale
has what is called the "pocket veto"...if he does not like an RFD he
does not post it.  There are no channels for challenging this pocket
veto, and tale has been the moderator for so long, many sites trust
him unconditionally.

The same potential exists for the "abuse" committee. After a few
years pass, enough people may trust the abuse committee in this
fashion. The abuse committee will be able to label any post "abuse"
that they choose to, including messages that "don't fit certain
standards". One of those messages could be yours, and you could lose
your internet access just because one of these committee members
doesn't like what you have to say.

[*] So why should I believe all this?

You don't have to take this posting's word for it. Read the charter
for yourself, over in news.announce.newgroups.
 
[*] What can I do?

*** I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO ON THE MODERATED GROUP PROPOSAL! ***

HERE'S HOW TO VOTE

Give your name on the line that asks for it. If you don't want to
vote on a particular group, just leave the space blank.  Don't worry
about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your
reply inserts.

Then mail the ballot to:    news-admin-vote@amdahl.com
Just Replying to this message should work, but check the "To:" line.

Quick voting checklist:
1) Fill in the ballot form shown below.
2) Delete the rest of this message from your reply.
3) Make sure your reply goes to news-admin-vote@amdahl.com

========== BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete everything before this line ==========
news.admin reorganization Ballot  <NA-REORG2-0001> (Don't remove this marker)

Give your real name here:

[Your Vote]  Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ YES     ]  example.yes.vote
[ NO      ]  example.no.vote
[ ABSTAIN ]  example.abstention

[         ]  news.admin.hierarchies
[ NO      ]  news.admin.net-abuse.announce
[         ]  news.admin.net-abuse.misc
[         ]  REMOVE news.config (see proposal)
[         ]  REMOVE news.future (see proposal)
[         ]  REMOVE news.newsites (see proposal)
[         ]  REMOVE news.software.notes (see proposal)
============= END OF BALLOT: Delete everything after this line ==============
-- 
Dave Hayes -- Institutional NETworks - Section 394 -- JPL/NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh
    [ Keep USENET free! - http://iems.jpl.nasa.gov/~dave/voteno.html ]

Learn from the mistakes of others.  
                 You don't have time to make them all yourself.

From caf-talk Caf Mar 16 07:01:38 1995
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: John@longevb.demon.co.uk (John de Rivaz)
Subject: Re: stopping the spread of electronic pron?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 11:57:44 +0000
Message-ID: <704036414wnr@longevb.demon.co.uk>

If porn is freely available, everyone will soon realise what boreing 
stuff it really all is. The real perversity is all those people who take professional fee income out of trying to supress it. They merely encourage vendors (by thinning the competition) and make iot appear more interesting than it really is. Remember h
w when CB in the UK was illegal how the airwaves were full of people using equipment imported from free(er) countries? Now it is legal, the airwaves are virtually silent. Remember the lessons of alcohol prohibition in the USA.


-- 
Sincerely,     ****************************************       
               * Publisher of        Longevity Report *
John de Rivaz  *                     Fractal Report   *
               *          details on request          *
               ****************************************
**** What is the point of life if it ends in death? ****



From caf-talk Caf Mar 16 11:10:21 1995
From: krs@li.net (Kevin Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Footworks Anyone????
Date: 16 Mar 1995 15:58:22 GMT
Message-ID: <3k9n6u$11q@linet02.li.net>

Anyone know anything about a software package by the name of Footworks 
that runs on a Unix platform?   Any pro's and or con's infor would be 
greatly appreciated. Not to mention saving a few jobs for the AS400 
people that will have to implement this new hardware and software 
package. Thanks.

     KEvin


From caf-talk Caf Mar 16 12:38:39 1995
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
From: devans@hclb.demon.co.uk (Dave Evans)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk]  JANET censorship
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 17:24:16 +0000
Message-ID: <795399856snx@hclb.demon.co.uk>

In article <3k4o0m$491@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> kadie@sal (Fwd:) writes:
> [A repost - Carl]
> 
> From: "Krebsy Halliwell." <BCS93SH@dmu.ac.uk>
> Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
> Subject:  JANET censorship
> Date: 14 Mar 1995 17:07:18 GMT
> Message-ID: <3k4ig6$han@macondo.dmu.ac.uk>
> 
> I'm not sure if this is exactly the correct group.
> 
> 
>   Does anyone know who to get in touch with regarding
> the censorship of usenet by JANET as it enters the UK.

A repost from the uk.community group

---- begin ----
From: mike@globe.dungeon.com (Mike Barnes)
Newsgroups: uk.org.community
Subject: JANET UseNet policy
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 13:29:31 GMT
Organization: Globetrotter
Message-ID: <3k6q3r$kd4_002@mavericks.bt.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mbpc.mavericks.bt.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Follow-Ups: uk.community

Hi all,

Sorry this is a bit late.
----
JANET newsgroup availability
A CommUnity Bulletin

25/2/1995

c/o Mike Barnes


There has recently been concern about a JANET network-wide policy which
prevents
academic news servers from carrying certain newsgroups - in particular the
alt.sex.* hierarchy. Some people have viewed this as censorship, and contrary
to the university ethos of free speech.

CommUnity asked UKERNA, the organisation which operates JANET on behalf of the
Higher Education Councils of England, Scotland and Wales, to provide more
information on their policy. Their response follows, with comment by CommUnity
at the end.

      " The funding councils have a committee (JISC - Joint Information
    Systems Committee) that manages networking for them. The JISC
    gives UKERNA instructions on what services we are to provide.

    The JISC has an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) that determines
    what JANET may be used for.

    EUNet(GB) have a contract with UKERNA to manage the distribution
    of news within JANET. The policy adopted on what news groups
    are distributed is:

    1. Potentially offensive, obscene etc items should not be
       distributed.

    2. Items that are considered to infringe copyright should not
       be distributed.

    3. Items that potentially infringe the Criminal Justice Act,
       The Oscene Publications Act, and other similar acts should
       not be distributed.

    4. Items that may be against the aims of the AUP should not be
       distributed.

    5. News groups where it is considered that no demand exists are
       also not distributed.

    Decisions on which news groups should be excluded from the
    general distribution are made jointly by EUNet(GB) (they have
    an interest as being potentially liable to prosecution) and
    UKERNA.

    For ease of administration, barring of news groups is taken
    at the highest level considered reasonable, hence the bar
    imposed on alt.sex.* despite there being groups inside which
    are acceptable.

    Decisions are made on the basis of the group name in the first
    instance. If complaints are received of another group carrying
    news coming under 1-4 above then they would be barred in the
    same way.

    It is always open for any site receiving news to request that
    undistributed news groups be allowed through to them. "

It has also been made clear that JANET sites are not at liberty, under the
EUNet(GB) contract, to make other arrangements for their news feed.

CommUnity does not see an issue here. There are three main reasons why:

1. The current UK law is unclear and it is unreasonable to expect news
   providers to place themselves at risk of prosecution. It is CommUnity's
   belief that change is required to clarify all possibly applicable laws
   (a process that has already begun).

2. The news providers own their news feed and equipment, and should be allowed
   the freedom to distribute whatever newsgroups they desire - choosing 
whether
   to risk flakey laws or not.

3. If you really want to read disallowed groups you are free to pay around 10
   per month to the provider of your choice to get an entire news feed (Demon
   current carry every group available anywhere, according to them).

A further concern is that users *.ac.uk sites are unable to attach to the 
Demon
pubnews.demon.co.uk news server (and perhaps others). This also seems to be
because of news distributor's arrangements. However, there seems to be no
clear policy on individuals connecting to remote servers - the policy 
currently
deals with the feeds to the JANET news servers themselves.

The advice from CommUnity to anyone who finds themselves unable to access a
newsgroup which they feel they should be able to access is this:

In the first instance, contact your local news administrator and ask if they
mind you connecting to a remote server. They may know of one you could connect
to, or on their authority you might be able to find one.

Failing that, or for a more long term solution, ask your news administator
to look into getting the newsgroup you are seeking fed through the normal
channels. If it is a reasonable request then there is no reason to suspect
that action will not be taken.

It is not recommended that you try to take an unauthorised news feed, as this
may (depending on the rules at your site) cause you much grief! If you have
trouble getting anyone to help, even after putting together a reasoned
request, contact CommUnity and we will be pleased to try to help.

This advice does not only apply to JANET users. In other cases, where you are
getting a news feed which you find unacceptable, you should attempt to get
a fuller news feed or vote with your feet.

Mike Barnes (mike@globe.dungeon.com), for CommUnity


----
Mike Barnes, technology editor of Globetrotter Magazine
URL: http://www.dungeon.com/home/globe/home.html
Voicemail: 01875 614888 - follow the prompts to box 049


---- end of repost ----


From caf-talk Caf Mar 16 14:31:54 1995
From: ronnb@crl.com (Ronald G. Blaylock)
Newsgroups: soc.college.grad,alt.censorship,memphis.general,tn.general,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computer Misconduct" at U of Memphis
Date: 16 Mar 1995 11:25:45 -0800
Message-ID: <3ka3bp$4du@crl.crl.com>


Carl M Kadie (kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: [Two alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk faq's

:    q: If a state university calls computer or network access a
:    "privilege", can they remove an individual's access arbitrarily?

:    q: Since freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses, a
:    public university can do anything it wants with the media that it
:    owns, right?

:    Also information on limits to a public university's authority
:    to "contract away" constitutional rights.
:   - Carl]

<CLIP>

IMHO: The person who does the writing and posting to the newsgroup owns 
the copyright to the material he or she writes. The university does not. 
I assume the university can limit access to the computer but they 
cannot legally or arbitrarily change or limit access to a persons legally 
owned copyrighted material. The university certainly should have the 
right to limit my access but I also would assume I have the right to 
retrieve my copyrighted material before they cut off access.

But this is just an opinion and may have nothing to do with reality.


Ron

From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 10:36:09 1995
From: acb@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (Andrew C Bulhak)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.politics.datahighway,comp.org.cpsr.talk
Subject: Re: Communications Decency Act of 1995 - Carriers Liable for Content?
Date: 17 Mar 1995 15:27:18 GMT
Message-ID: <3kc9om$8o3@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>

John de Rivaz (John@longevb.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article: <3jj6v4$gta@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>  
: acb@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (Andrew C Bulhak) writes:
: > Then they pick a few small providers at random, raid them, seize their
:                        ^^^^^           ^^^^^^^^^   
: > assets and jail them. All of a sudden, most sites get scared and comply,m
:                                                         ^^^^^^
: > with the exception of a few sites which are so far downstream that they
: > don't make a difference. This means that sites which cannot afford to have
: > a staff of censors monitoring and moderating all of USENET will have to
: > deny access to USENET altogether.

: This is just the sort of legal terrorism that Nazis used. Will humanity ever 
: learn? 

I don't think that the Nazis invented these methods; they were used by
every repressive regime in history, because they are effective. As for
whether humanity will ever learn, maybe in a few hundred years' time 
authoritarianism will disappear together. Either that or Orwell will be
proven right. Who knows?

-- 
A n d r e w   B u l h a k  
acb@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au  "Sanity is for the masses who don't know how
     acb@cs.monash.edu.au   to handle insanity."
           acb@zikzak.net                        -- Tim Sailer

From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 12:32:58 1995
From: barr@math.psu.edu (Dave Barr)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet,alt.wired,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: The freedom of USENET is at hand, please read this.
Date: 17 Mar 1995 17:32:48 GMT
Message-ID: <3kch40$1s0@soc2.pop.psu.edu>

In article <3k8l4h$ioc@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov>,
Dave Hayes <dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>[*] Why is this bad?
>
>There are a few reasons, listed from the most important to the least
>important. 
>
>1) The charter directly says:
>
>       Any rule changes will be made by majority of the moderators.

Our charter no longer says this.  Yes, that's what is in the
CFV, but that is because we didn't get to vote on a change before
the CFV went out.  It's too late to back out the vote now -- all
I can say is that we've used our power to change the rules to
vote to give up that power to the public.  Hey, even the U.S.
Constitution didn't get it right on the first signing.

>Note what the above statement means. Once you've voted the group in,
>they can change the charter out from under you and do things anyway
>they want. This alone should be enough reason to vote NO on such a
>proposal, especially when it deals with net abuse.

Any change in editorial policy must be approved by a 2/3rds public
vote.

Anyone who still has concerns about what the group is and what it
means, please talk to me privately via e-mail or gimme a call.

--Dave

From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 13:24:22 1995
From: Druff <71553.1102@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: FTC Legislative ALERT!
Date: 17 Mar 1995 18:19:38 GMT
Message-ID: <3kcjrq$nkd$9@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>

Legislative Alert!



New proposed Federal Trade Commission Rules on Telemarketing
pose a great threat

to businesses, sysops, list brokers, copywriters, printers,
desktop publishers, etc., and to freedom of  speech!



Your Immediate Attention Is Called To 16 CFR Part 310

Telemarketing Sales Rules



Note: Section 310. Definitions...includes...the use of facsimile
machines...computer modems, or any telephonic medium.



Your attention is called to "Assisting and Facilitating" Section
310.3[b] [1] {page 11} of the proposed rule sets forth a general
prohibition against assisting or facilitating deceptive
telemarketing acts or practices. Assistors who engage in these
activities will violate the rule if they know, or should know,
that the person they are assisting is engaged in an act or
practice that violates the rule.



The five types of assisting and facilitating activities listed
in the proposed rule are as follows: first, providing lists of
customer contacts to a seller or telemarketer [e.g., serving as
a list broker]...and fifth, providing any script, advertising,
brochure, promotional material, or direct marketing piece to be
used in telemarketing. 



Section 310.4[b] [pages 14 & 15] ...it is an abusive act or
practice and a violation of the rule to call a person's
residence to offer, offer for sale, or sell, on behalf of the
same seller, the same or similar goods or services more than
once within any three month period...



Page 25 - #7 - The proposed rule states that the term
"telemarketing" includes the use of a facsimile machine,
computer modem, or any other telephonic medium, as well as calls
initiated by persons in response to postcards, brochures,
advertisements, or any other printed, audio, video, cinematic or
electronic communications by or on behalf of the seller...



Page 25 - #8 - The proposed definition of "telemarketing"
includes within the rule's coverage On-Line information services
which a person accesses by computer modem.   



Section 310.3 [a] [4] {page 11} would prohibit consumers from
paying by check over the phone without prior written
authorization while allowing credit card holders to do so
without prior written authorization.  This would discriminate
against the 75 million consumers who do not have a credit card,
the millions of consumers who have no usable credit on their
credit card and the businesses, most of them small or new, who
cannot obtain credit card merchant status to accept credit
cards.  It would also further the monopoly of Visa and
MasterCard and the up to 21 percent interest they charge credit
card users.



Please read the proposed rules in their entirety to ascertain
their possible effect on your business, the telemarketing
industry and the growth of the Information Super Highway.  



Since most businesses and individuals are totally unaware of
these proposed rules, it is important that this information is
distributed through every means possible so that interested
parties have the opportunity to comment and protect their
interests.



Written comments must be submitted on or before March 31, 1995. 
A public workshop-conference will be held at the Chicago Hilton
on April 18th through April 20th from 9am to 5pm.  



Five paper copies of each written comment should be submitted to
the ...

Office of the Secretary, Room 159, Federal Trade Commission,
Washington DC 20580.

To encourage prompt and efficient review and dissemination of
the comments to the public, all comments should be submitted, if
possible, in electronic form, on either a 5< or 3= inch computer
disk, with a label on the disk stating the name of the commenter
and the name and version of the word processing program used to
create the document.  Submissions should be captioned: "Proposed
Telemarketing Sales Rule" FTC File NO. R411001.



The full 50 pages of the proposed rules can be downloaded from
the NYACC Bulletin Board, file name "FTC" -  phone 718-539-3338.



I would appreciate your feedback and a copy of any comments that
you intend to submit and I suggest that you disseminate this
information as widely as possible.



Ronald A. Stewart

126  13th Street

Brooklyn, NY 11215

Phone 718-768-6803

Fax 718-965-3400 







From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 13:27:30 1995
From: Druff <71553.1102@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: FTC legislative alert (more info)
Date: 17 Mar 1995 18:20:26 GMT
Message-ID: <3kcjta$nkd$10@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>

File Name "FTcanswr.asc"

Proposed comments to FTC about  written authorization required
for checks by phone



Under Section 310.3 [a] [4] of the proposed rule, it is a
prohibited deceptive telemarketing act or practice for a seller
or telemarketer to obtain or submit for payment from a person's
checking, savings, share, or similar account, a check, draft, or
other form of negotiable paper without that person's express
written authorization.  For example, a telemarketer cannot
submit an unsigned draft on a consumer's bank account without
that consumer's prior written authorization.  This Section of
the proposed rule would discriminate against the 75 million
Americans who do not have a credit card [1990 census] and the
millions of credit card holders who want to make a purchase by
phone, fax, computer, computer bulletin board, etc., but who
have no usable credit on their card.



Would discriminate against the thousands of new and small
businesses who cannot obtain Credit Card Merchant Status to
accept major credit cards and reduce their sales by not being
able to accept a customer's check over the phone.



The rules would allow credit card payments over the phone,
increasing the monopoly of MasterCard and Visa with their up to
21 percent charges to consumers.



Would effectively kill the rapidly growing "checks by phone"
industry, putting over 20 companies (and their employees) out of
business and costing countless less sales to the thousands of
clients these businesses are now servicing.



Fraud associated with checks by phone is less than with credit
cards.  Any consumer can take a check to his or her bank and,
since consumer's signature is not on check, have the check
kicked back to the bank it was originally deposited in and have
their account credited.  As with credit card sales over the
phone, it is the merchant that is at risk, not the consumer.



The FTC must demonstrate why checks over the phone must require
prior written authorization from consumers [which would
effectively negate its usefulness] while allowing credit card
purchases by phone without prior written authorization.



In order for the Information Super Highway to continue to grow,
checks by phone will play a positive important role.  People
will be shopping from their personal computers, from their TV
sets using their interactive remote control device...on computer
bulletin boards and on the Internet and by fax machine. 
Consumers will need ways to transmit money over the phone and
fax lines and businesses will need ways to receive money by
phone line and fax and by computer.  75 million Americans do not
have a credit card and thousands of legitimate businesses cannot
qualify for credit card merchant account status to accept major
credit cards.  To preclude checks by phone will cause great
economic loss to the American economy. 



If banks received numerous complaints about checks by phone they
would stop paying them [checks without account holders
signature].



Handicapped, the elderly, shut-ins, etc., would be further
penalized by being forced to address envelopes, purchase postage
stamps, and going to a mail box instead of being able to
conveniently give a check over the phone.



If future information and statistics demonstrate that checks by
phone produces more fraud and complaints than credit card fraud,
the FTC can revisit this issue in future rules.  No anecdotal
evidence presently exists that this is currently the case.



From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 16:06:28 1995
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet,alt.wired,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.individualism
From: twpierce@midway.uchicago.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: The freedom of USENET is at hand, please read this.
Message-ID: <D5LrF3.6Hq@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 20:54:39 GMT

                       THE FREEDOM OF USENET IS AT HAND.
                                       
What's going on?

   A proposal is currently underway in news.announce.newgroups to
   reorganize the news.admin.* hierarchy, removing some dormant
   newsgroups and creating two new newsgroups for discussing "net abuse."
   These two are:

     * news.admin.net-abuse.announce
     * news.admin.net-abuse.misc
       
   Unfortunately, a few opponents of this reorganization have vocally
   opposed the creation of the "announce" newsgroup because it is
   moderated.
   
What's wrong with this?

   The biggest irony of all is that the moderators of the proposed
   newsgroup will not be composing their own reports. They will simply
   receive reports of "net abuse" that others send in, and post these
   reports to news.admin.net-abuse.announce, leaving others to draw their
   own conclusions about whether the reported behavior really constitutes
   "abuse." The group will basically be a low-noise version of the
   already-existing alt.current-events.net-abuse, which is nearly
   impossible to navigate due to its high traffic and very low signal.
   The only action they will take will be to filter out
   non-announcements, or items they find specifically not to constitute
   abuse. Here's what the opponents say:

     * Once the newsgroup has been created, the moderators can change the
       charter and do whatever they want.
       
       That's the way moderated groups have always worked. Few moderated
       groups exist today whose charters have not shifted slightly with
       the passing of time. This is hardly the time or the place to be
       raising general objections to the moderation structure in Usenet.
       
       Besides, the following points were added to the charter
       immediately preceding the CFV. They will show up in the second
       CFV:
       
          + Selection of new moderators will be made by majority.
            Forcible removal of a moderator will be by consensus of
            remaining moderators.
          + Changes must be approved by a public two-thirds majority
            vote. A change is proposed, and after no less than three
            weeks of discussion in news.admin.net-abuse.misc, a vote
            lasting three weeks is started. Two-thirds of those voting
            "yes" or "no" must be yes for the change to take place. The
            UVV team will be used for the vote.
   
     * The moderators refuse to define what they mean by "net abuse."
       
       The standards for defining net abuse have never been clear-cut.
       The debate on what is and isn't abuse rages on continually. And
       yet, despite this ambiguity and "I know it when I see it"
       procedure, agreement on what constitutes "net abuse" has reached
       the closest equivalent to unanimity that an anarchic society of
       several million individuals can possibly hope for. Only a true
       paranoid skeptic would assume that the proposed moderators of
       news.admin.net-abuse.announce plan never to consider the public
       consensus on net abuse.
       
     * No satisfactory method exists for accused net abusers to confront
       their accusers, or to redress their grievances. Someone whose
       account has been cancelled cannot even respond at all.
       
       This is false. See the "Right of Reply" section in the
       news.admin.net-abuse.announce charter.
       
       Apart from that, however, what "accusers" are being referred to
       here? The charter does not claim the group to be a court of law,
       or some star chamber meting out punishment. In fact, it explicitly
       rejects that notion: "The purpose of this group is not to decide
       the guilt or innocence of any parties, but rather to simply report
       on the activity (much like the crime section found in many local
       newspapers)." The "accused" parties may respond once in
       news.admin.net-abuse.announce, and as many times as they wish in
       news.admin.net-abuse.misc, if they feel they have been wrongly
       cited. The charge that the moderators should be held responsible
       for the cancellation of someone's account is not even worth
       answering.
       
       The moderators of news.admin.net-abuse.announce will have only as
       much "power" as the readers wish to give them. That is an
       important point to remember.
       
     * Forged articles submitted to the moderators may prove disastrous
       for the party whose name has been forged.
       
       So? That's true about Usenet in general. Claiming that this is a
       reason to vote against news.admin.net-abuse.announce is like
       arguing that you shouldn't buy a Nissan Sentra because flying is
       safer than driving.
       
     * No recourse exists to deal with a moderator gone bad.
       
       This, too, is true of Usenet in general. Unless you object to the
       very concept of a moderated newsgroup -- and there are those who
       do -- it's not clear why this should bear special weight against
       news.admin.net-abuse.announce. The point seems to be that there is
       a risk in sites trusting the moderators unconditionally, but
       again, they have only as much power as people choose to give them.
       
   You can find the newsgroup charter in the CFV in
   news.announce.newsgroups.  Its Message-ID is
   <news.admin-reorg2-CFV1@uunet.uu.net>.
   
What can I do?

  YOU CAN VOTE YES ON THE MODERATED GROUP PROPOSAL!
  
    HERE'S HOW TO VOTE:
    
   Follow these instructions and use the mailto link provided, or
   cut-and-paste the indicated text (including the "BEGINNING OF BALLOT"
   and "END OF BALLOT" lines!) and send it yourself in your favorite mail
   agent.
   
   Give your name on the line that asks for it. If you don't want to vote
   on a particular group, just leave the space blank. Don't worry about
   spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your reply
   inserts.
   
   Then mail the ballot to news-admin-vote@amdahl.com.
   
   Quick voting checklist:
   
    1. Fill in the ballot form shown below. Change any votes you don't
       agree with.
    2. Delete the rest of this message from your reply, retaining the
       "BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and "END OF BALLOT" lines.
    3. Make sure your reply goes to news-admin-vote@amdahl.com.

========== BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete everything before this line ==========
news.admin reorganization Ballot   (Don't remove this marker)

Give your real name here:

[Your Vote]  Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ YES     ]  example.yes.vote
[ NO      ]  example.no.vote
[ ABSTAIN ]  example.abstention

[ ABSTAIN ]  news.admin.hierarchies
[ YES     ]  news.admin.net-abuse.announce
[ YES     ]  news.admin.net-abuse.misc
[ ABSTAIN ]  REMOVE news.config (see proposal)
[ ABSTAIN ]  REMOVE news.future (see proposal)
[ ABSTAIN ]  REMOVE news.newsites (see proposal)
[ ABSTAIN ]  REMOVE news.software.notes (see proposal)
============= END OF BALLOT: Delete everything after this line ==============

-- 
Unsolicited commercial electronic mail sent to this address will be
proofread at a cost of $200/hour (one half-hour minimum).

    <URL:http://http.bsd.uchicago.edu/~t-pierce/news/voteyes.html>

From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 18:31:25 1995
From: sears@uh.edu (Paul S. Sears)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: At .edu sites, who owns a student's research work?
Date: 17 Mar 1995 23:27:03 GMT
Message-ID: <3kd5s7$j1u@masala.cc.uh.edu>



We are facing a problem that we do not think has been adequately  
addressed.  First, the overall question is:

Who owns a student user's work (project, etc - not email)
   a) when the student is enrolled at a public university.
   b) when a student leaves a public univerity.

We already understand that email is protected by the ECPA, but we are  
mainly interested in graduate/phd research work.  When a student leaves,  
who retains the rights to the research completed by the student - his/her  
advisor or the student?  Often we are requested to give the student's  
advisor ownership of all research realted files.  We always make an  
attempt to contact the ex-student, but often, we can't locate them in a  
reasonable amount of time.  From what we understand about intellectual  
property, the University retains all rights to research and patents  
developed by faculty, since they are paid to do this.  However, the  
student pays to attend (although, they are also often compensated for  
doing research)...  Can someone clarify this issue?



--
Paul S. Sears                *  sears@uh.edu (NeXT Mail OK)
The University of Houston    *  http://www.egr.uh.edu/~sears/
Engineering Computing Center *  
NeXT System Administration   *  DoD#1967 '83 NightHawk 650SC 
"Programming is like sex: One mistake and you support it a lifetime."

From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 21:05:31 1995
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: --> NEWSFLASH!  More Internet-Related Legal Threats by Scientology
Message-ID: <noringD5M3q9.23J@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 01:20:32 GMT

[Notice the Followup-To: line above.]


In article to alt.religion.scientology, Daniel Davidson, davidson@sfsu.edu 
<3kd03r$64d@news.csus.edu> wrote:


... prompting the email below:

From  jtrue@sfsu.eduFri Mar 17 13:42:07 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 13:15:37 -0800
From: John True <jtrue@sfsu.edu>
To: davidson@sfsu.edu
Subject: Student Discipline Charge

March 17, 1995
Daniel Davidson

Please be advised that as Executive Director of Computing Services, I have
filed a Student Discipline Charge against you with the Office of Student
Affairs for violation of the Student Conduct Code (Title 5, California Code
of Regulations).

This action is based on a complaint that you posted substantial portions,
and in some cases the entirety, of copyrighted, unpublished works onto 
the Internet without authorization.

John True

************************************
John True       jtrue@sfsu.edu
Computing Services
San Francisco State University
************************************


And the following email arrived this morning:

>From  hkk@netcom.comFri Mar 17 10:04:51 1995
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 09:20:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Helena Kobrin <hkk@netcom.com>
To: davidson@sfsu.edu
Subject: Copyrighted materials



Dear Mr. Davidson:

	I represent Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner of the 
confidential Advanced Technology of the religion of Scientology, and the 
holder of exclusive rights under the copyrights applicable to the Advanced 
Technology materials.  Among these copyrighted and confidential materials 
are the Advanced Technology materials of certain levels known as "Operating 
Thetan Sections I, II and III," "the L Rundowns The L-12 Rundown Step 6," 
"NED for OTs Series 1, 34, 35, 36, 43."

	We have been informed that you have posted substantial portions, and 
in some cases the entirety, of these copyrighted, unpublished works onto the 
Internet without the authorization of our client, who, of course, would not 
have given such authorization had it been requested.  Your action violates 
our client's legal rights in that it is the unauthorized making of electronic 
copies of the copyrighted material and the unauthorized disclosure of trade 
secrets materials.  

	These actions constitute violations of the United States Copyright 
laws entitling our client to damages, an injunction, and impounding of 
materials and equipment used in perpetrating the infringing acts.  It is 
essential that you take immediate and effective action to remove the 
unauthorized copies from the Internet, and that you refrain from any 
repetition of this or similar acts in the future.

	I will expect an immediate response from you with a statement of 
your willingness to comply with these demands.  If you do not comply 
immediately, I expect to be authorized to initiate legal action to compel 
compliance.

						 Very truly yours,



						 Helena K. Kobrin



--
  			  = Daniel Davidson =
		           davidson@sfsu.edu

  	  When seeing someone lying unconscious on a city street,
       	    it is considered appropriate to continue walking,
			 essentially unaffected.


***********************

-- 
OmniMedia           | The Electronic Bookstore.  Come in and browse!  Two
1312 Carlton Place  | locations:  ftp.netcom.com  /pub/Om/OmniMedia/books
Livermore, CA 94550 | and  ftp.awa.com  /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia
510-294-8153        | E-book publishing service follows NWU recommendations.  

From caf-talk Caf Mar 17 21:35:44 1995
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.culture.usenet,alt.wired,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.individualism
From: skoper@netcom.com (Stan Koper)
Subject: Re: The freedom of USENET is at hand, please read this.
Message-ID: <vPPQlKZHGWIH079yn@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 14:02:33 GMT

Did April 1 come early this year, or is it a full moon, or what?

Stan Koper
skoper@netcom.com
     "The Bill of Rights--Ten Impediments to Law Enforcement?"
         This message brought to you by uqwk and Yarn .079