Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!Firewall!ddsw1!learn
From: learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Student suspended for distributing /etc/passwd
Message-ID: <1991Jun18.011127.1782@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 18 Jun 91 01:11:27 GMT
References: <64655@bbn.BBN.COM> <VLmL42w164w@dogface> <1991Jun16.042916.15434@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Lines: 56

In article <15434@athena.cs.uga.edu> Michael A. Covington writes:

>Computers at Georgia are not funded by student activity fees or lab fees.
>The main UNIX system was donated to the University by Sun Microsystems
>and is operated by the Department of Computer Science as a service to
>the University community. So this student is not being denied anything
>that he paid for.
 
You earlier stated that there are no public access systems at Ga. Now
you further support the contention by stating that the Unix system is a 
service to the University community. Since the student was a student and 
has/had no other means or reason to access the Unix system in question,
his access to the computer was tied up in the parcel of his matriculation,
and as I generally understand matters, other students paying no greater 
fees than the student under discussion access the machine. In short, machine 
access is inseparable from paying tuition and fees to the Ga Tech. Thus, 
although there hasn't been till now a separate fee for computer access, he 
has actually paid computer access fees as part of the monies he paid to Ga Tech. 
The fact that Ga Tech has buried this cost within other fees and tuition 
isn't the student's problem, but might well come back to haunt the 
administration one of these days.

Before anyone runs and thoughtlessly initiates a new fee structure for
students using a university computer, it best be understood that if a
separate fee structure is imposed, a much greater degree of professional
system management will be required by those who are paying access fees
than seems to be the standard fare on many of the internet systems. I
am not being critical of any system. But there is a general awareness that
with heavy student participation in the management and decision making 
the cost/benefit factors favor educating new sysadmins at the expense of
reliability. This is, after all, one of the purposes of having such equipment
available at universities.

But what remains is that one cannot separate out some students, for any
reason whatsoever, and stipulate they have no computer access and provide
justification by saying that they didn't pay for access. Furthermore, if
fees are charged, no part of the usage may be subsidized except from access
fees. This means th real world costs associated with the computer must be
paid for by the academic population actually using the computer.

In the long run, it is easier to permit all students to access the machines,
not kick anyone off, and not talk out of both sides of one's mouth at the
same time.

If you don't want students accessing some information or another, then
safeguard it as well as you're supposed to.

In my opinion, the student we're discussing behaved stupidly. But look at
the wonderful example set by Ga Tech in their infinite wisdom. The system
has behaved as stupidly as the student. Perhaps moreso.

I lived in suburban Atlanta some 25 years ago. I had heard some progress
was made down there. What I see and read here indicates to me that
absolutely nothing has changed since I left in 1966.

Bill Vajk