Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!noao!arizona!gln From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (GaRY NEweLl) Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy Subject: Re: Harrassment via email Message-ID: <1545@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> Date: 30 May 91 16:35:26 GMT References: Distribution: comp Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Lines: 68 In article , jc@raven.bu.edu (James Cameron) writes: > Boston University Information Technology ethics > Conditions of Use and Policy on Computing Ethics March 26, 1990 > > CONDITIONS OF USE > To protect the integrity of the University's computing facilities and > the users thereof against unauthorized or improper use of those facili- > ties, Boston University reserves the right, without notice, to: limit or > restrict any individual's use, and to inspect, copy, remove or otherwise > alter any data, file, or system resource which may undermine the author- > ized use of any computing facility. Boston University also reserves the And just how does BU intend to determine if a file "may undermine the authorized use of any computing facility"???? Great line but it sure sounds like this is defending the right for some potential scumbag sysadmin to poke around as he or she pleases - if anyone tried to set up a rule like this here at Arizona I would expect that even the faculty would choke on it (but I could be wrong). > right periodically to check any system and any other rights necessary to > protect its computing facilities. The University disclaims responsi- > bility for loss of data or interference with files resulting from its > efforts to maintain the privacy and security of those computing facili- This is truly revolting in my opinion. Why don't they just say "we can do any damn thing we like and you can't say anything!" ? > POLICY ON COMPUTING ETHICS > 4. You must not access, alter, copy, move or remove information, pro- > prietary software or other files (including programs, members of subrou- > tine libraries, data and electronic mail) without prior authorization > from the appropriate University data trustee, security officer or other Huh? You can't remove email without permission? From a "University Data Trustee" no less? I can only assume that this means others programs and email right? > 5. You must not use any computing facility irresponsibly or needlessly > affect the work of others. This includes transmitting or making acces- > sible offensive, annoying or harassing material; intentionally, reck- Ah - now here is where I have been having a problem with most of what I've read in this group of late, with respect to this issue. Would one of you care to define what is and what is not "offensive" or "harrassment" or even better still "annoying" - since when does someone lose his right to be annoying because he has computer access? Geezuz..... Seems to me this all reduces to the "I know porn when I see it" argument - rather than be explicit about what can or cannot be said or done (because that is too risky!) some sysadmin is going to be given the power to make decisions about what is harrassment or what is offensive and in effect, this technical employee will be given the right to influence students - he will be taking an academic role for which he is most likely not qualified and certainly wasn't hired to do. > 6. You are encouraged to report any violation of these guidelines by > another individual and any information relating to a flaw in or bypass Maybe it is just me but I think that there are sections of this "policy" that simply reek to high heaven. This whole thing seems to set up an environment where suspicion is rampant and where people are actually encouraged to undermine other students/faculty etc. This does make sense in cases of sabotage and theft and so on - but to tie "net-behavior" into this is absurd in my opinion... > -- James Cameron (jc@raven.bu.edu) gln