NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/comp/acadfre/talk/3445

Text File | 1992-11-21 | 7.0 KB | 145 lines

Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Eric Scheirer)
Subject: Re: The FBI takes a trip to Cornell...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 08:20:02 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 130


In article <mumble> J.S. Greenfield ([e-mail]) (JSG) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
   [e-mail] (Eric Scheirer) (ES) writes:

ES> First, I think that the action taken by Cornell regarding Usenet in general
ES> was refreshingly slight.  It would have been all-too-easy to restrict access
ES> to the whole alt hierarchy, or even all of Usenet, during the "interim"
ES> period during which investigations are occurring.

JSG> But why should they have shut down a.p.b.e in the first place?  Was the
JSG> group responsible for what one (or a few) individuals posted to it?

I think that the concern was not with "punishment" of people in the Cornell
community who like to "read" a.p.b.e.  Rather, it stemmed from other factors,
importantly a demonstration of cooperation with the FBI in the matter, and
a lack of knowledge about the forum itself.  I think the concern of the
Cornell administration was whether a.p.b.e *regularly* carries a lot of
*illegal* material.

IMHO, an adminstration is justified in keeping illegal material off its
computers by such an action.  I do think their rapid action demonstrates
their ignorance as to the actual nature of a.p.b.e.

JSG> Would Mr. Lynn have ordered cornell.general (or whatever you have like
JSG> that) shut down if these individuals had posted the questionable
JSG> item(s) there?

I don't think so, because they *know* what the content of cu.general is.
If someone were to start posting binaries, in particular child pornograpy
there, I think they would be much more likely to deal with the person
individually.  You may be right, though, that this is an inconsistancy.

JSG> Would the university have closed off the Arts Quad if they caught someone
JSG> distributing alleged child pornography there?

Two years ago there was another FBI sting here of an individual who was
manufacturing fake ID's (for non-US readers, driver's licenses doctored
to allow the owner to purchase alcoholic beverages illegally) out of his
dorm room.  Apparently, he had connections with organized crime from New
York City and was also trafficking in drugs.  Residence Life restricted
use of residence halls for *any* business purposes, legit or otherwise,
in the aftermath.

I think there's a gray area here which should be recognized.  The value of
the Arts Quad and of a.b.p.e, particularly in light of its resource
utilization, are *not* equivalent.  This is not to say that I think a.b.p.e
is without value --  it is, after all, protected speech for the most part --
but rather that I think that saying "all fora are equal" simply by virtue
of having *some* protected speech content in them is naive.

JSG> As such, I suspect that the closing down of a.p.b.e. was 99% due to
JSG> the erotic content.  And if I were at Cornell, I wouldn't look forward to
JSG> having Mr. Lynn re-institute the group anytime too soon.

Two points:  none of the other "erotic content" (whatever that means)
groups are gone, eg. alt.sex.* or rec.arts.erotica (for what THAT's worth)
or EVEN alt.sex.pictures.  Also, note that this is only for
Cornell's "official" distribution of Usenet.  Cornell provides a server
newsstand.cit.cornell.edu which is available for public NNTP access, and
it is this, and the companion servers which have been restricted.  The CS
department, for example, maintains its own hierarchy, and the restricted
groups are still available there.

On the other hand, newsstand provides the news that nearly every undergrad
gets, as well as the Theory Center.  It's not clear to me if there's an
easy way to go about getting the groups through other Cornell avenues (I
strongly dislike the "buy your own goddamn server" argument).

ES> Some comments from around campus seem to indicate that the student
    population
ES> thinks that such an investigation is "too harsh".  I think that what the
ES> FBI is concerned about, and rightly so in my view, is the possibility that
ES> the student, or people connected to the student in some way, were the
ES> people behind the camera for the photography.
>
ES> I think that the charge of _being the one with the scanner_ is much more
ES> serious that one of just downloading and/or viewing the pictures.  It's
ES> the difference between "trafficking" or "transporting" and "possessing",
ES> IMHO.

JSG> Well, I'm not going to get into an extended discussion over the
     pro's and con's
JSG> of anti-child-porn laws, but I feel quite sure that downloading
     and viewing
JSG> the pictures would not constitute an illegal act, in many cases.

JSG> Lots of people download files based solely upon the (very brief) subject
JSG> headings.  One can hardly be held liable for a crime when they downloaded
JSG> and viewed an image that they did not know to be "child pornography"
JSG> a priori.

I agree.  Were you intending to disagree with what I said?  Again, the
concern here is that the involved student was the one UPLOADING some of
these files; and by extension, that he might have been involved with the
photography in the first place.


 (this is quoted from the _Cornell Daily Sun_)
CDS>> Marjorie W. Hodges J.D. '91, judicial administrator, said her office is
CDS>> pursuing its own investigation.  The student may have violated a Campus
CDS>> Code of Conduct status that forbids "trafficking, for profit or
CDS>> otherwise, in goods and services, when incompatible with the interest
CDS>> of the University and the Cornell community."  She would not comment
CDS>> any further on the case.

JSG> Has the CCLU made a public statement regarding this matter?

Not, to my knowledge, as of yet.  However, the story only "broke" on Friday
morning, and we don't really have a local news source around here during
the weekends.  Ithaca has no morning newspaper of its own, and the Sun
only publishes on school days.  There will certainly be follow-up reportage
on Monday.

I'm also expecting a statement from Cornell Information Technologies on
this matter.  They generally issue official statements of the relevant
portions of the Computer Abuse Policy and so forth, to try to keep the
public informed as to what rules have allegedly been broken.

Their statement here will have to be slightly different, as I don't believe
that there are computer abuse ramifications per se here.

----
Eric Scheirer - Sun Undergrad Lab Consultant - [e-mail]

Any opinions expressed above are mine alone, and are not intended to
represent views of the Cornell CS Dept, or Cornell Information Technologies --
I don't even work for CIT!