Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!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: <1547@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> Date: 30 May 91 22:28:35 GMT References: <1545@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> <1803@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> Distribution: comp Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Lines: 137 In article <1803@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>, marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes: > In article <1545@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> gln@cs.arizona.edu (GaRY NEweLl) writes: > > 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 > I think the point of having a policy is to define the computing > environment at a particular site. We can't be judging what is a > "restrictive" or "wide-open" environment in this group because of the > wide variety of member site environments. If my user community agrees > to operate in a "restrictive" environment, no one in this group is in > a position to tell me that my regulations are not correct. It really I don't buy this for a minute. If you are talking about restricting a site due to the nature of their work and so forth, then I understand your point - otherwise I do not see how it relates to you or anyone else dictating what is "annoying" behavior and making it punishable by restricting access - it seems pretty clear to me that one can easily say - "that is a restrictive organization". > doesn't matter whether the site is a university, company or government > agency. If the users agree to operate under a particular site's rules, Of course it matters - it matters very much. Agreement (a poor choice of words when one considers that individuals who do not agree must sign on in order to gain access to the resources - there is no choice involved what-so-ever) to poorly defined regulations does not give a sysadmin the right to abuse an individual's rights. This is particularly true in an academic setting where, in my opinion, a sysadmin has absolutely *no* authority to discipline, or endager the academic standing of any student. he/she fills a service role (albeit an important one) in the form of a technical position and is simply not qualified to do more than advise and inform others who can/should make the judgements (and be willing to deal with the ramifications of course). > The existence of a policy statement allows a site to protect its user > environment from within the site and from outside of the site. Again, statements such as "Thou shall not annoy anyone" or "we can look at any file or piece of email correspondence anytime we feel like it" simply step beyond the realm of reasonable policies, in my opinion. This may not hold for some govt sites or private organizations, but it certainly should at any institution of higher education. > I suspect that if you were the victim of some form of "harassment" (not > just confined to email,i.e, someone changes data in your dirs or deletes > a file from your dir) and the offending party when confronted says "Kiss > off" that your opinion would change slightly. There is a famous quote, First, I would never support the theory that one creates and enforces laws based on one's supposed personal response as a hypothetical victim. Second, I've received my fair share of what I would call harrassing msgs. and have had students try to break into my account and so on (I should add that I have also sent private correspondence in the form of electronic mail to others which they might have viewed as harrassment - certainly annoying) . Also, I am talking about e-mail not truly harmful actions which can be clearly defined and regulated (such as your data-changing and file-deletion examples above) - there is I believe, a difference. > "A conservative is a liberal who was mugged." A well thought out policy > statement should PROTECT the user rights by defining their > RESPONSIBILITIES. True - and the policy that I responded to was far from well thought out. It was an attempt (again in *my* opinion) to cover all of the bases by assuming broad and general authority to those in charge of the system and by completely eliminating the rights of users including the right to privacy and free speech. You can protect a user's files and so forth without going anywhere near as far as this policy went. > As for the last sentence, I can't resist. I wasn't aware that "technical > employees" had the right to "influence student", etc. Jeez, we better > run out and tell other staff people such as librarians, athletic coaches, > clergy, lab techs, dining hall staff that they're not qualified to > influence students. :-) Influence their careers in a negative way - I should have been more clear. For example, you are hired to keep a system up and running, manage equipment purchases perhaps, and so on - you are *not* hired to play judge and jury over what I would classify as academic issues nor are you qualified to take actions which could have a negative effect on a student unless ordered to carry out anothers decision (say a dept. chair) - so yes of course you can inform the proper individuals that a problem exists, and yes you can then go ahead and carry out the decision of the dept. chair or dept. faculty committee or whatever, but you (not you personally of course - just a sysadmin in general) should have no right, IMHO to determine that a problem exists and then decide on the penalty that will be paid. > As far as universities go, please remember that students are NOT the > only users of university computer systems. But they are the only ones whom I am interested in arguing for at this time. Perhaps in a couple of years I'll join you for the faculty version. :-) > "Net-behavior" most certainly needs to be addressed. A internet site in > AZ could be subject to "sabotage and theft" from a site anywhere in the > world. An environment where "suspicion is rampant" is created when the > "creators" of the environment act in that way. The better approach is > to educate the user community that responsible behavior is critical to > a productive environment. Again - this is not what I mean by net-behavior - I am still referring to the attempt to legislate what is harrassing or better yet what is offensive or (my favorite) annoying - this has little or nothing to do with sabotage and I see no need to include it in any policy designed to combat sabotage and theft - the policy did however. > Point 6 really is no different than someone saying " you should report > a murder being committed". I don't think the intent is to create a > community of spies but to ensure that an injustice is handled properly. NO - when applied to netnews or mail it says "if you are a humorless drip and someone says something that you do not like, then turn him in to the local sysadmin for punsihment and justice". Here at Arizona truly damaging activity is pretty clearly spelled out (sabotage to others files and so on as well as theft of course) and a similar - "if you see someone ripping us off - please tell us" approach. However, this same aggressive approach is not the norm (IMHO) with respect to issues of expressing one's opinions on the net or through e-mail. I still see no reason to tie the two together. > Again, if you as an educator take the "Big Brother" approach, then you > will foster a suspicious environment. On the other hand, if you take the > approach of teaching responsibity, you create a better environment in > the long run. Very true - did you find the policy to be designed to teach responsibility? It sure looked like Big Brother had a hand in drafting it to me..... > -Randy Marchany gln