NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/comp/acadfre/talk/3449

Text File | 1992-11-22 | 6.7 KB | 142 lines

Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!newstand.syr.edu!greeny
From: [e-mail] (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: The FBI takes a trip to Cornell...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 13:05:20 EST
Lines: 131

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric Scheirer) writes:
>
>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.

To my eye, the adminsitration should not *assume* that the group regularly
carries such material.  If they are concerned, better that they should
actually *check* the group.  (They should have a reasonably-sized backlog
still on their server.)

Alleged "child pornography" is *not* common on a.p.b.e (though there are
almost always examples of copyright violations).


>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.

Yes, but by the reports, they have not expressed concern over illegal
materials being *imported* onto Cornell machines from outside.  They were
concerned over the postings of a single student *at* Cornell.

Given that they (along with the FBI) are already dealing with the student, it
is hard to understand what benefit they seek to achieve by shutting down
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.

But we're not talking about resources here.  If the administration were to
say "We're not going to carry any more "binaries" groups, because we
don't have the resources to store the articles (and this were the truth)
then that would be fine.

But that is not the case, here.  As such, I don't think that questions of
resource-use apply at all to this situation.


>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.

I should clarify my statement.  I didn't mean to suggest that Cornell was
on a crusade to eliminate such groups.  I just meant to suggest that, where
you have an administration that is not *very* firmly committed to free
expression/exchange of ideas/etc. (which is virtually every college
administration that I've encountered), such groups are going to be very
susceptible to abuse.

I *do* consider it problematic if the university handles a problem with
a.p.b.e differently from a similar problem in, say, cu.general.  I suspect
that any group in the alt.sex hierarchy would be treated as a "suspect"
group--and would be treated similarly to a.p.b.e. if a potential problem
arose.  On the other hand, I suspect that the same technique would not
be used for non-"suspect" groups.

And I wouldn't expect to see a suspect group back anytime soon, because
I just don't think the administration sees the ban of a suspect group
to be as objectionable as a ban on a non-suspect group.  (In other words,
they don't great underlying motivation to re-institute the group quickly.)


>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.

Was I agreeing?  Yes and know.  yes, I agree that there is a difference.
But your comment seemed to suggest that downloader were culpable also--just
not as much the uploader.  My point was simply that, assuming we were
talking about illegal child pornography, many downloaders may not have
been culpable at all.


--
J. S. Greenfield                                         [e-mail]
(I like to put 'greeny' here,
but my d*mn system wants a
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"