Computers and Academic Freedom News 02.31 (Digest)
Carl M. Kadie
Vol. 02, No. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lorr...@wucs1.wustl.edu (Lorrie Ackerman)
Subject: Article 0 -- Abstract of CAF-News 02.31
[Week ending June 28, 1992
[This issues guest editor is Lorrie Ackerman, lorr...@wucs1.wustl.edu
- Carl]
========================== KEY ================================
The words after the numbers are a short PARAPHRASES of the
articles, or QUOTES from them, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SUMMARY and
not necessarily my opinion.
===============================================================
1. It is nearly impossible to keep students from posting to news, and there
is no good reason to do this. "It would seem to me that a little user
education, and instilling a sense of responsibility in students....would
be a lot more effective, and probably a lot less work."
<pschleck.709318357@odin>
2. Speculations on "why the First Amendment uses the language 'Congress
shall make no law....' while the remainder of the Bill of Rights uses
language like 'the right to [something] shall not be violated.'"
<BqD4B...@unx.sas.com>
3. The news system for the Cleveland Free-Net "has been patched to support
anonymous newsgroups as a class of moderated newsgroups, and all identifying
information is removed from the header of an article before it is mailed
to the moderator....The system seems to be quite effective...."
<920625025...@nextsun.INS.CWRU.Edu>
4. Information overload on the net could be eased by the addition of meta
discussion groups in which self-selected commentators make short comments
on posts. People could write kill files to select articles to read
based on these comments.
<1992Jun25....@cadlab.sublink.org>
5. "I have extensively revised and expanded many of the computing policies
that apply to the largest educational network at Rice, Owlnet." Includes
notes on Rice's University Computing Policy, Owlnet Policies, Owlnet Policies
Enforcement Guidelines, Owlnet Student Advisory Committee Charter, System
Administrator Statement of Ethics, and Owlnet Application Agreement. Also
includes access information for these documents.
<1992Jun27.1...@eff.org>
- Lorrie]
In this issue:
Paul W S KD3FU 63 >Posting priviledges in educational establishments
Fred Welden 109 >[UPI] Supreme Court strikes down 'hate crime' statutes
Stephen Trier 41 >Anonymous postings (was: [] More S/H)
Alex Martelli 100 >would this be censorship?
Carl M. Kadie 200 Rice U. - Overview
Computers and Academic Freedom News
Managing Editor: Carl M. Kadie (ka...@eff.org)
Administration: William W. Arnold (caf-talk...@eff.org, war...@eff.org)
Associate Editor: Elizabeth M. Reid (e...@eff.org)
Associate Editor: Paul Joslin (jos...@tso.uc.edu)
Associate Editor: Adam C. Gross (ag...@andrew.cmu.edu)
Associate Editor: Mark C. Sheehan (she...@unixpop.ucs.indiana.edu)
To contribute to the list, send email to "caf-...@eff.org". Your note
will appear immediately on the caf-talk mailing list and in the
alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk newsgroup.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org. The
directory is pub/academic/news. Abstracts of CAF-news are in file
pub/academic/abstracts. The CAF archive is also available via email.
For information, send email to archive...@eff.org. Include the
line:
send acad-freedom README
Disclaimer: This CAF-News abstract was compiled by a guest editor or a
regular editor (Paul Joslin, Elizabeth M. Reid, Adam C. Gross, Mark C.
Sheehan, or Carl M. Kadie). It is not an EFF publication. The views an
editor expresses and editorial decisions he or she makes are his or
her own.
The addresses for the list are:
comp-academic...@eff.org - for contributions to the list
or caf-...@eff.org
list...@eff.org - for automated additions/deletions
(send email with the line "help" for details.)
caf-talk...@eff.org - for administrivia
Also, if you read newsgroups, look for alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
and alt.comp.acad-freedom.news.
------------
------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Jun 23 13:36:30 1992
From: psch...@odin.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Article 1--Re: Posting priviledges in educational establishments
Message-ID: <pschleck.709318357@odin>
Date: 23 Jun 92 16:52:37 GMT
Status: RO
sd...@city.ac.uk (COLLIER M P) writes:
>I have just installed News here at City (no small feet [sic]).
>Before it goes live, I would like some ideas for ways of
>preventing young, hot-headed, undergraduates from flooding the
>Net. I realise that I can prevent selected machines from posting,
>what about selected users?
(I've cross-posted this to alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk and directed
followups there, as I have an hunch about where this is going).
Well, your impression of students as "hot-headed" who need to be kept
>from "flooding the net" certainly deserves further comment, but I will
address the technical questions first.
>Have people in other establishments bothered to do this. For
>example is it worth it if users can just telnet into the NNTP port
>anyway? I'd be interested in any comments/suggestions.
Usenet is a sieve. There are several ways in, including running your
own copy of inews, telnetting directly to the 119 port, and E-mailing
to a news/mail gateways (ucbvax.berkeley.edu is the most well-known).
To keep students from posting to news, you would have to deny them
E-mail, compilers, and telnet connects to most sockets.
Of course, the overriding question is, "Why?" Most academic
institutions in the U.S. have very open access policies for students.
Sure, there are some net-vandals running around, but they get dealt with
sooner-or-later. Just because some punks are ripping pages out of
library books, for example, doesn't mean all students should be shut out
of the campus library. It would seem to me that a little user
education, and instilling a sense of responsibility in students (who have
at least shown enough responsibility to get into and stay in college)
would be a lot more effective, and probably a lot less work.
Why shouldn't students have access to such a valuable research tools as
Usenet? You have indicated in your signature that you are a programmer
at a city college in the UK, obviously a fairly skillful one to have set
up a news feed. Perhaps that you have forgotten that one of the primary
purposes of existence for a college is to serve students and their
academic needs (in addition to faculty and their research). Having put
so much work into getting news running, you are understandable concerned
about having your "baby" misused, but that's the risk you take. A
campus computing center exists to serve faculty and students, the latter
of whom have paid tuition and contracted with the insitution to have
those services provided to them. Your elitism and prejudice do not make
for good customer service. An individual whose salary is paid, in part,
by those customers should be a little more concerned about such things.
I would assume that your college has a good Code of Conduct and related
Use/Misuse Polices for campus computing resources? If not, maybe now is
the time to develop some. I would recommend the Academic Freedom Archive
at ftp.eff.org. Carl Kadie, ka...@cs.uiuc.edu, will probably be posting
more information about the archives, as well as more good counter-
arguments for an open access policy to news.
Paul W. Schleck
------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Jun 24 15:50:56 1992
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.activism,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: sas...@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden)
Subject: Article 2--Re: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down 'hate crime' statutes
Message-ID: <BqD4B...@unx.sas.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1992 18:21:04 GMT
Status: RO
I asked why the First Amendment uses the language "Congress shall
make no law. . . ." while the remainder of the Bill of Rights uses
language like "the right to [something] shall not be violated."
It seemed to me that this language implied that the States were
permitted to pass laws regarding the establishment of religion,
abridging freedom of speech and the press, and so on.
Thanks to all who replied via e-mail to give me their interpretations.
These fell into two large groups:
1) Explanations that the guarantees of the Bill of Rights were extended
to apply to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
2) Various (some indignant) explanations of how the Supreme Court
came to have the power to interpret the Constitutionality of
State laws.
I don't think either of these addresses the question I posed, so I
sat down to draft the First Amendment in terms like the following
nine, to see what might be wrong with it.
The original text:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The 'corrected' text:
"The right of the people to establish or freely exercise religion; to
freely speak or publish their opinions; peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be
abridged."
How do they differ?
The original version:
1) allows that someone else (such as States and municipalities) may pass
such laws all they want to.
2) allows that these freedoms may be abridged by other means than the
passage of laws, without violating the Constitution.
3) Fails to guarantee these freedoms to entities other than the people.
(For example, if the State of North Carolina tried to establish a
religion.)
4) Does not call the establishment and practice of religion, and the
speaking and publishing of opinions, rights. It calls them freedoms
instead. Peacable assembly and petition ARE called rights in the
latter portion of the amendment.
Being of a suspicious bent, I wonder if one of these differences
represents a reason that actually obtained at the time the amendment
was written.
Likely candidates:
1) A State already had an existing law respecting the establishment of
religion or the free exercise thereof. Had there been such a law, the
authors of this amendment might well have specified that *Congress*
could make no such law in this one amendment only, so as to gain that
State's support for ratification. If this is the case, then I think
the authors bowed to expedience, and their intent was something like
the 'corrected' text, which would make me happy.
2) The authors wanted courts to be able to issue injunctions forbidding
specific religious practices, or specific speeches or publications.
This would not involve Congress making a law.
3) I don't think 3 above has much to offer to speculation.
4) This is, I think, the most interesting area for speculation. Perhaps
the intent of the authors was deliberately NOT to recognize a right to
every religious practice, or every form or content of speech or press.
Rather, these things are identified as freedoms--things that people
are generally free to do, but not guaranteed. They are further such
important freedoms that Congress is forbidden to curtail them by law,
but further than this the authors were unwilling to go.
Certainly the authors would have been able to imagine religious
practices, and speeches and publications, which they felt could be
legitimately suppressed by law. For example, human sacrifice, slander,
libel, and fraud. Reading over the remainder of the Bill of Rights,
I find no other thing specifically identified as a "right" which the
authors would have identified as subject to such abuse. I think
history has shown that it is these supposed rights to religious
practice, free speech, and free press, that have caused the greatest
controversy, and the greatest care in balancing the conflict of
one individual's rights against another's.
If this is the case, I'm a bit unhappier. Frankly, I think a right
to every religious practice is a pretty dangerous thing to promise
people, but I think speech and press ought to be truly free.
Does anyone else care to speculate, or am I just talking to myself
out here?
--
--Fred, or another blind 8th-century BC | sas...@dobo.unx.sas.com
Hellenic poet of the same name. |
------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Jun 24 22:51:57 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: s...@po.cwru.edu (Stephen Trier)
Subject: Article 3--Re: Anonymous postings (was: [] More S/H)
Message-ID: <920625025...@nextsun.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1992 02:51:44 GMT
Status: RO
Douglas Jones, jo...@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu, writes:
> A better scheme might be to allow anonymous postings to moderated
> newsgroups. Then, I could establish a local newsgroup for my class and
> act as moderator. I would want to guarantee to my students that their
> postings were actually anonymous, that is, that no personal identifying
> information was available to me, the newsgroup moderator (keep in mind
> that I have access to lots of log files on the machines in question!).
A mechanism like this was implemented for the Cleveland Free-Net (CFN).
The news system (C News) has been patched to support anonymous newsgroups
as a class of moderated groups, and all identifying information is removed
>from the header of an article before it is mailed to the moderator.
An anonymous newsgroup, like any other newsgroup on the system, is installed
at SIGop request. The Law, Medical, Gay and Lesbian, and Environmental
SIGs of CFN come to mind as users of anonymous newsgroups.
Log files of identities aren't an issue, because they are not kept. In
addition, all system log files can be read only by the system administrators.
They cannot be read by the moderators or users, providing a strong guarantee
of anonymity.
The system seems to be quite effective, especially in the medical areas.
As far as I know, anonymous newsgroups have not been used in educational
areas of CFN. It is a fascinating idea, though.
Stephen
Disclaimer of opinion: These are MY opinions, not CWRU's. Don't blame them.
--
Stephen Trier I never think of the future.
s...@po.cwru.edu It comes soon enough.
- Albert Einstein, 1930
------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Jun 27 00:05:48 1992
From: mart...@cadlab.sublink.org (Alex Martelli)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.future,news.groups
Subject: Article 4--Re: would this be censorship?
Message-ID: <1992Jun25....@cadlab.sublink.org>
Date: 25 Jun 92 09:23:38 GMT
Status: RO
t...@tarzan.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) writes:
...
:Censorship is not the only problem -- the sheer volume of information
:is a big problem also. Important information can be lost not only
:because it's suppressed but also because it's buried under irrelevant
:stuff one has no time to scan through.
Agree 100% - information overload is getting to be as big a problem as
censorship itself.
:I believe the mechanism outlined above would be useful for some groups
:-- not all, it would be just another alternative between normal
:moderation and none at all, and of course it'd have to be voted on
:just like normal moderation or name change or whatever.
Disagree. No need to vote or make it official in any way. We could have
MULTIPLE "selectors/critics/commentors/digestors" for a group, all self
selected, each of whom, if he or she feels like it, could post a particular
type of followup to any article, suggesting others to read, or not to
read, it, or better still commenting on it with appropriate keywords so
as to cathegorize the article and let potential readers select or kill
it more easily. It would help if there were some easy way to distinguish
such comment-posts from "normal" posts even for users of old software, or
the "comment-post" traffic could become annoying to such users. An
experiment I believe would be REALLY worthwhile would be to take a group,
make another group for such comments on it (so those not interested can
easily avoid receiving the comment-posts) and other metadiscussion, and
hack a few newsreaders appropriately [Distribution:, or suitable other
headers, might also work instead of the comment-post group, but selecting
out the comment-posts would then be harder for people not interested if
their, or their feeder's, sw is not up to it].
Let's see how this might work, with an example scenario. Suppose group
alt.lang.basic is selected for this experiment; alt.lang.basic.metadisc
is then formed. Angela A, who wants to read all of alt.lang.basic anyway
for her own reasons, decides to start metaposting as a public service.
She follows up to all articles she reads, with a special key in her
suitably hacked newsreader (say Control-F rather than just F), so that
the followup will go to .metadisc, will only refer to the article
being followed up, and will carry some suitable header identifiying
it as a comment-post. In the body of the metapost, she only puts a few
keywords per article - maybe "C64" would mean the article will only make
sense for C64 Basic, ditto "GW" for GWbasic, etc; "drivel" or "gem" would
express her evaluation of the article; "humor", "flame", "beginner",
"technical", "interpreter-writers-only", or whatever, might categorize
it further. Buster B, a sometime reader of alt.lang.basic, decides to
tak advantage of the new service, and in HIS hacked newsreader is a way
to autoselect, or autokill, articles based not only on the article
itself, but optionally on the comments in .metadisc by one or more
commentors he, personally, respects the opinions of.
Nothing says Angela A is the ONLY commentor on alt.lang.basic! Indeed
Charlie C often disagrees with her (he knows because in HIS newsreader he
reads all of alt.lang.basic anyway, PLUS for each article he sees the
commentors' opinions of it), so much that he decides to become a
commentor too, countering some of her "drivel" comments with a "don't-miss"
of his own, and viceversa. Now Buster gets to make a choice - he may
autokill articles panned by BOTH Angela and Charlie, autoselect those
praised by both, and get presented on the menu for non-automatic selection
those where they disagree, with info on what both thought of the article.
After a while he finds he actually agrees with Charlie much more often
than with Angela, and may set his newsreader to let Charlie's opinion
override Angela's, using Angela's metaposts only if nothing has been heard
by Charlie on a give article. And so on, and on.
This will of course only help readers who are in no hurry to see posts, as
it will take some time for metacommentors' feedback on various articles to
propagate. No worry! I believe most of us news fen are in the "no hurry"
cathegory for SOME groups - maybe we now avoid all of said groups, if they
are high-volume, rather than try searching for that 15-20% of articles
which WOULD actually interest us; with such mechanisms, that 15-20% would
instead get read. Many of us are in the read-all-of-it-anyway for SOME
groups which are to us of consuming interest; if the mechanism for
metacommenting is well built, we'll then be able to give a service to
others with little extra effort.
Things work like that in many others walks of life. I can't possibly go
see EVERY movie that gets screened, nor buy EVERY book; I rely on several
sources to help me select - a critic I appreciate pans or praises the
book or movie, a friend gives me a tip, some authors/directors I like so
much I'll fall for anything by them anyway, and so on. Posts are,
individually, less weighty than books or movies, but there are so many
more of them, that such selection help would be invaluable anyway.
I have studiously avoided the term "moderator". No need for ONE individual
to assume such selection-help responsibility, much less to vote on him or
her as "moderator"; multiple inputs to the individuals' selection process
will only help. If some person is SO widely agreed with, that his or her
metacomments acquire the practical status of a "soft moderator" as you
suggest, so be it; vice versa, SOME metacommentors will not be listened
to by essentially anybody, and, again, so be it. In most cases I believe
one will want to weigh *several* metacommentos' opinions (automatically in
one's newsreader selector/killer), if the idea takes roots and many people
begin to metacomment.
--
Email: mart...@cadlab.sublink.org Phone: ++39 (51) 6130360
CAD.LAB s.p.a., v. Ronzani 7/29, Casalecchio, Italia Fax: ++39 (51) 6130294
------------------------------
From caf-talk Caf Jun 27 14:18:00 1992
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.policy.admin
From: ka...@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Article 5--Rice U. - Overview
Message-ID: <1992Jun27.1...@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1992 18:17:53 GMT
Status: RO
Joseph A. Watters, the Deputy Director of Owlnet at Rice University,
has sent me updated versions of Owlnet's computer policies.
Interesting features include a Sys Admin Statement of Ethics and
student committee that advises on policy and handles some of the
discipline.
I'm enclosing Mr. Watters overview letter (with his permission) and
access information for this and related. To faciliate discussion, I'll
post the documents as separate articles.
================================
>From j...@rice.edu Sat Jun 27 12:47:27 1992
>From: Joseph A. Watters <j...@rice.edu>
>Subject: Updated Rice University computing policies
>To: ka...@cs.uiuc.edu
>Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 16:56:37 CDT
>Cc: j...@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters)
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Mr. Kadie,
As you maintain and critique University computing policies, I thought
it appropriate to send you updated editions of many of Rice
University's computing polices. I have extensively revised and
expanded many of the computing policies that apply to the largest
educational network at Rice, Owlnet. The new policies and other
documents are included in 6 messages that follow this one. Please feel
free to critique these, and post them to an appropriate newsgroup
(comp.admin.policy?) for further public comment. You may also archive
and post all or parts of this message as explanatory comment to the
archive material. The mail messages contain:
Rice's University Computing Policy - You should already have this in
the archive. It hasn't changed, but I'm sending it along as part of
the set. Of significant note is the section requiring permission of
the Vice President for Information Systems for a student to send
communications off-campus and to access external computing facilities.
Last semester, Owlnet obtained blanket permission for student users to
access external computing facilities for educational purposes. All
Owlnet student users (1500 students) automatically receive permission
as part of their account acquisition. Existing users were given
permission also. Owlnet essentially found a way to give the students
what they wanted, access to off-campus facilities, including e-mail and
news posting, without requiring the University to go through the
relatively arduous process of changing a University wide policy.
Owlnet Policies - These are the policies that I have the most direct
control and influence over. They have been extensively revised based
upon comments from students at Rice and comments from people such as
yourself.
Owlnet Policy Enforcement Guidelines - This document has been
extensively rewritten since the last one in the archives. The major
change is a rewriting to incorporate the disciplinary function of the
Owlnet Student Advisory Committee, a new student body whose charter is
included in one of the messages.
Owlnet Student Advisory Committee Charter - This charter establishes a
student computer user committee with two main functions: proposing
and reviewing Owlnet computing policies with the purpose of having a
formal mechanism for including student input into policy formulation;
and acting as a disciplinary body for users accused of violating
Owlnet computing policies. The charter was originally written by a
student. I then formed a working group of myself, a system
administrator and four students (the proposal author was one of them)
to work out some specific issues with the charter. The result of that
working group is what you see. The charter has essentially been
adopted by the faculty committee that sets policy direction for
Owlnet, and we anticipate forming the first committee this fall.
System Administrator Statement of Ethics - This statement was
recently adopted by the system administrators in Rice's Information
Systems division (these sys admins provide services to Owlnet). It
is a statement of how they will approach user privacy and
confidentiality.
Owlnet Application Agreement - This is the agreement that all new
users sign. I believe this one is a later version than the one in
your archives.
--
Joseph A. Watters, Jr. j...@owlnet.rice.edu
Deputy Director, Owlnet dire...@owlnet.rice.edu
Rice University
Houston, Texas
========================================
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
policies/rice.edu
=================
Computer policies for Rice University, especially Owlnet. (Rice is a
private University in Houston, Texas.) The charter for the Owlnet
Student Advisory Committe Charter is included. The two main functions
of the committee are "proposing and reviewing Owlnet computing
policies with the purpose of having a formal mechanism for including
student input into policy formulation; and acting as a disciplinary
body for users accused of violating Owlnet computing policies."
=================
policies/old.rice.edu
=================
Old computer policies ("User Agreement","Disciplinary Procedures",
"Appropriate Use") for Rice University (especially Owlnet). Rice is a
private University in Houston, Texas. These policies are under
development and subject to change. The "Disciplinary Procedures" is
interesting because it establishes a due process procedure just for
computer infractions.
(Critiqued, replaced by newer policies)
=================
policies/old.rice.edu.critique
=================
Critiques of the old computer policies at Rice University (especially
Owlnet). Updated policies are now in force.
Summaries: One critic calls the policy "uptight and authoritarian",
saying: "Requir[ing] permission ahead of time to send email or use ftp
offsite? Lock accounts with no warning? My God, why not just shoot
them in the head? It'd be kinder." The Director replies that
permission is readily given.
Another critic says that parts are too vague and that privacy
provisions may be inconsistent with general University policy,
Yet another critic says "This is the most dangerous sort of policy, if
what you say is true-- a policy which is routinely violated, but which
is enforcible against 'troublemakers'-- whereas an oppressive policy
strictly enforced will be challenged and revoked, this policy can stay
on the books forever, becoming a weapon for administrators to use on
any students who annoy them."
=================
policies/README
=================
Computer Policy and Critiques Archive
[part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
[part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]
This is a collection of the computer policies of many schools and
networks. The collection also includes critiques of some of the
policies.
The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/policies".
For email access, send email to archive...@eff.org. Include the
line:
send acad-freedom/policies <filenames>
where <filenames> is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.
For more information, to make contributions, or to report typos
contact Carl Kadie (ka...@eff.org). Directory "widener" contains
additional policies (but not critiques).
=================
caf
=================
A description to the comp-academic-freedom-talk mailing list. It is a
free-forum for the discussion of questions such as: How should general
principles of academic freedom (such as freedom of expression, freedom
to read, due process, and privacy) be applied to university computers
and networks? How are these principles actually being applied? How can
the principles of academic freedom as applied to computers and
networks be defended?
=================
=================
These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/policies/rice.edu
pub/academic/policies/old.rice.edu
pub/academic/policies/old.rice.edu.critique
pub/academic/policies/README
pub/academic/caf
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive...@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/policies rice.edu
send acad-freedom/policies old.rice.edu
send acad-freedom/policies old.rice.edu.critique
send acad-freedom/policies README
send acad-freedom caf
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=ka...@eff.org, ka...@cs.uiuc.edu =
------------------------------
End of Computers and Academic Freedom News (Digest)
************************************
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
=ka...@eff.org, ka...@cs.uiuc.edu =