Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gatech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!gatech!spaf
From: spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.misc
Subject: Re: Censorship: A Case History (part 5, 6 Mar 84 to 2 Apr 84)
Message-ID: <7300@gatech.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-May-84 16:41:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: gatech.7300
Posted: Wed May 16 16:41:28 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 17-May-84 07:14:32 EDT
References: <7190@unc.UUCP>, <258@heurikon.UUCP>, <932@ihuxq.UUCP>
Organization: The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech
Lines: 54

Does anyone have part 6 of the Maroney Case History?  Were there any
parts beyond 6?  A rather large number of cancellation messages found
their way onto the net a few scant hours after the original articles
were posted.  I suspect they were done by the system administration at
UNC rather than by Tim himself.  I was going to read the articles when
I got into school the next morning, but found that most of the postings
were lost.  Perhaps that's why Tim posted separate copies to multiple
groups...?

Censorship on the net is not new.  There are a number of sites on the
net where news and even mail is censored.  One friend of mine was
recently telling me about the major company where he works (which shall
remain unamed) where one of the major bozos not only censors incoming
and outgoing news, he also reads mail.  At this site, they are so
paranoid about "security" that they have locked up virtually every
directory in the system.  For instance, you have to find a privileged
operator to run an "lpq" command.  You also cannot run the normal csh
because the bin directories aren't readable and the shell cannot form
the command hash list.  And the ".." directory is unreadable on user
accounts. And so on.  This is pretty amazing at a major company whose
name is known to all of us.

I believe that the person responsible for each site has a certain
amount of responsibility to deny users access to the net if they abuse
their privilege of access.  Note that I said "privilege."  There is no
right to net access.  If I were administering a machine, and I was
aware of someone abusing their privilege, I would take appropriate
action.  However, I would definitely observe some simple rules of
fairness and due process.  Tim's case *appears* to be one of arbitrary
action compounded by some personal motives.  The items that Tim posted
make the UNC administration appear to be somewhat arbitrary and petty
in their decisions.  It also appears as if Tim was denied due process.

I, for one, will not attempt to either defend Tim or condemn the
administration at UNC.  Only one side of the story has been partially
told, and every story has at least two sides.  Still, I think Tim could
have used better judgement.  In fact, I think everybody involved might
have benefitted from a little more restraint.  Consulting an unbiased,
outside mediator might have been a good step.  Tim has always impressed
me as a bright, although sometimes too hasty, individual; I wish him
well wherever he may be.  On the other hand, the only impression I have
of Mr. Brooks at UNC is through this incident, and that impression is
not entirely favorable. 

This is a very good example of a conflict with no winners -- only
losers.  Let's hope we don't see any more cases like this on the net.
Let's all try to remember that privilege implies responsibility.

-- 
Off the Wall of Gene Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet:	Spaf @ GATech		ARPA:	Spaf%GATech @ CSNet-Relay
uucp:	...!{akgua,allegra,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!spaf
	...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!spaf