Xref: utzoo alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:82 comp.admin.policy:323 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu!jgreely From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy Subject: Re: Ohio State University CIS Policies Message-ID: Date: 7 Jun 91 17:01:39 GMT References: <1991Jun3.165946.12637@eff.org> <1991Jun3.173550.13928@eff.org> <1991Jun3.232500.24850@ms.uky.edu> <1991Jun4.004016.20415@eff.org> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Reply-To: J Greely Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science Lines: 40 In-reply-to: abraham@iesd.auc.dk's message of 6 Jun 91 20:00:25 GMT In article abraham@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes: >jgreely> This was pretty mild, and I wouldn't even have been >jgreely> annoyed if they hadn't been world-readable. >Would you please explain why making them world *readable* would annoy >you? A combination of university rules and state law. I don't care if a user has a picture showing why a dog is a girl's best friend (although that collie did *not* look happy), but if it's world-readable in a directory named "look", it can cause legal problems for the department. >My reaction would be the exact opposite. If other people can't >read them, they might get their own private copies, thereby wasting >more disc space. They do. Of the 60+ meg of images I found on student file servers, I'd say at least half of them were duplicates, and many of them were already installed in our public "tame" raster directory. If we could set up a group-readable area for images of questionable taste (group "quest", perhaps? :-)), we could perhaps cut down on the amount of duplication. I have a feeling that the department chairman's response to this idea would not be favorable (he's already come very close to ordering us to forcibly remove all questionable images from the system). This material has been reviewed by independent experts who found, based on their professional experience and training, that the material: * has scientific value * does not appeal to the prurient interests of the average adult American. Material is intended for viewing/reading by adults only, for use in the privacy of the customer's home. Not for public use. -- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)