emv@ox.com (Ed Vielmetti) (03/29/91)
Note in particular the phrase that
4. ANS networks must not be used to transmit any
communication where the meaning of the message, or its
transmission or distribution, would violate any
applicable law or regulation or would likely be highly
offensive to the recipient or recipients thereof.
"highly offensive" is deliberately vague; my gloss on this is that ANS
could use this clause as it sees fit to squash out any sort of traffic
it didn't like, under only the smallest of pretexts.
ANS is the recent IBM/Merit/MCI conglomeration that runs the NSFnet backbone.
--
Msen Edward Vielmetti
/|--- moderator, comp.archives
emv@msen.com
From: kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent England)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 17:46:06 -0500
I think this answers some of the questions raised of
late regarding ANS. Gordon, you might consider this in answer
to your plea for someone from ANS to raise their voice. :-)
From: Joel_Maloff@um.cc.umich.edu
To: kwe@bu-it.bu.edu, maloff@merit.edu
Subject: ANS Acceptable Use Policy
Kent;
Thank you for your inquiry into the ANS Acceptable Use Policy.
As you requested, I have attached it to this message. You may feel free
to share it as you see fit.
The ANS Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) bears much in common with
policies of other organizations involved in internetworking. ANS
adopted an AUP for much the same reasons that led other networks
to do so. We wish to provide the best possible service to the
research and education community. The AUP will be administered on
a case by case basis, taking real - not hypothetical - cases one
at a time, and with the help of the community that we serve,
respond appropriately to real instances. Both formal and informal
groups will be used by ANS in seeking guidance on the AUP
administration. Attaching institutions will have responsibility
for adherence to the AUP, and will give advice on its
administration and suggested changes. ANS expects the AUP to
evolve over time. The AUP reads as follows:
ANS ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
Advanced Network & Services, Inc. (ANS) is a not-for-profit
corporation dedicated to the advancement of education and
research in the interest of improving competitiveness and
productivity in the global economic environment. Accordingly,
ANS' objectives are to help expand access to and interchange of
information technology resources among academic, government and
industry users, provide state-of-the-art high speed data networks
and related services, engage in related research and development
work, and improve the ways that information is created and used
for education and research purposes. ANS aims to support the
academic and research communities, enhance education and research
at all levels, and contribute to improving the quality of
education and research.
Organizations using ANS services will directly benefit if ANS
services and facilities are used in ways which will build overall
system efficiencies, maximize the accessibility of the system,
and minimize or eliminate unimportant or improper traffic over
the systems. ANS will be able to provide better service for User
Organizations if a reasonable Acceptable Use Policy is adopted,
promulgated and applied by ANS and all User Organizations.
The Policy
1. All use of ANS network services are be intended to
facilitate the exchange of information in furtherance
of education and research, and otherwise be consistent
with the broad objectives of ANS.
2. Users of ANS network services will promote efficient
use of the networks to minimize, and avoid if
possible, congestion of the networks and interference
with the work of other users of the networks.
3. Users of ANS network services will not disrupt any
of the ANS networks as a whole or any equipment or
system forming part of its systems, or any services
provided over, or in connection with, any of the ANS
networks.
4. ANS networks must not be used to transmit any
communication where the meaning of the message, or its
transmission or distribution, would violate any
applicable law or regulation or would likely be highly
offensive to the recipient or recipients thereof.
5. ANS networks must not be used for commercial
purposes. However, if a use is consistent with the
purposes and objectives of ANS, then commercial
activities in support of that use will be considered
an acceptable use of the network.
6. Advertising of commercial offerings is forbidden.
discussion of a product's relative advantages and
disadvantages by users of the product is encouraged.
Vendors may respond to questions about their products
as long as the responses are not in the nature of
advertising.
7. Interpretation, application, and possible modification
of this Acceptable Use Policy will be within the sole
discretion of ANS. Questions about any issue arising
under this Policy should be directed to ANS by User
Organizations when an issue first arises.
rowan@ima.isc.com (Rowan Hawthorne) (03/29/91)
In article <EMV.91Mar28182018@poe.aa.ox.com>, emv@ox.com (Ed Vielmetti) writes: |> Note in particular the phrase that |> 4. ANS networks must not be used to transmit any |> communication where the meaning of the message, or its |> transmission or distribution, would violate any |> applicable law or regulation or would likely be highly |> offensive to the recipient or recipients thereof. |> |> "highly offensive" is deliberately vague; my gloss on this is that ANS |> could use this clause as it sees fit to squash out any sort of traffic |> it didn't like, under only the smallest of pretexts. I would say that this should be clearly defined the way that the U.S. Postal service defines it: obscenity is defined by the recipient. ANS should not engage in censorship of traffic, unless requested to by the recipient of mail deemed obscene. In general, the USPS engages in censorship (refusal to deliver messages) only at the request of recipients or law enforcement agencies. Rowan Email rowan@ima.isc.com Fax->email 508-294-0128 Fax (ISC) 617-661-2070 Phone 617-661-7474 x206 upstream from the last bend in the Charles River
nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) (04/01/91)
Where does ANS get the authority to make policy? ANS is a subcontractor to MERIT, which is a contractor to the National Science Foundation. John Nagle
ereiamjh@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Tom B. O'Toole) (04/02/91)
In article <23952@well.sf.ca.us> nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) writes: > > Where does ANS get the authority to make policy? ANS is a subcontractor >to MERIT, which is a contractor to the National Science Foundation. > > John Nagle I would also like to know how this arrangement came about. I have read a couple of articles in newspapers and some dicussion in this group and am still confused. Was there any kind of open bidding? It seems like some pork was thrown IBM's way (and MCI, an IBM running buddy), but I didn't see any hard facts as to the details of the arrangement, if anyone can clarify this, I would appreciate it. I would rather not have IBM running the operation of the internet, but I guess if it was an open bid, and to be up for grabs periodically, I can't really argue with that. -- Tom O'Toole - ecf_stbo@jhuvms.bitnet - JHUVMS system programmer Homewood Computing Facilities, Johns Hopkins University, Balto. Md. 21218 ease!Trim!eeeaaaassse!trimtrimtrimeeeeeeaaaaassetrimease!trim!ease!trimeaase
mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) (04/02/91)
ereiamjh@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Tom B. O'Toole) writes: |nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) writes: |> Where does ANS get the authority to make policy? ANS is a subcontractor |>to MERIT, which is a contractor to the National Science Foundation. | | I would also like to know how this arrangement came about. I have read |a couple of articles in newspapers and some dicussion in this group and am |still confused. Was there any kind of open bidding? It seems like some pork |was thrown IBM's way (and MCI, an IBM running buddy), but I didn't see any ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm confused by this claim. Details? |hard facts as to the details of the arrangement, if anyone can clarify this, |I would appreciate it. I would rather not have IBM running the operation of |the internet, but I guess if it was an open bid, and to be up for grabs |periodically, I can't really argue with that. I'm pretty understanding of why IBM's such a big target...it *is*. However, could you explicate *why* you feel this way? -- Mark Brown IBM PSP Austin, TX. (512) 823-3741 VNET: MBROWN@AUSVMQ MAIL: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com OR uunet!testsys.austin.ibm.com!mbrown Which came first: The Chicken or the Legba? DISCLAIMER: Any personal opinions stated here are just that.
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (04/03/91)
rowan@ima.isc.com (Rowan Hawthorne) writes: >I would say that this should be clearly defined the way that the U.S. >Postal service defines it: obscenity is defined by the recipient. ANS >should not engage in censorship of traffic, unless requested to by the >recipient of mail deemed obscene. In general, the USPS engages in >censorship (refusal to deliver messages) only at the request of >recipients or law enforcement agencies. Only the government can enact censorship. ANS is not the government. You can get alternate services. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (04/03/91)
nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) writes: > Where does ANS get the authority to make policy? ANS is a subcontractor >to MERIT, which is a contractor to the National Science Foundation. ANS provides a service to MERIT and the NSF. I don't see any reason why ANS couldn't provide similar services to others, so long as they meet their end of the deal with MERIT. ANS cannot set a policy that would violate the terms of their agreement with MERIT. Need I go on? -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) (04/04/91)
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: [....] >Only the government can enact censorship. ANS is not the government. >You can get alternate services. The ANS is (according to the first note) "the recent IBM/Merit/MCI conglomeration that runs the NSFnet backbone." It is thus an agent of the U.S. Federal Government. As to the proposition that by definition only governments can censor. Everyone is free to define "censorship" as they wish. Several groups, however, define censorship is such a way private censorship is possible: * The "Freedom to Read Statement" of the the American Library Association and Association of American Publishers says: 'Private groups and public authorities in various parts of the country are working to remove books from sale, to censor textbooks, to label "controversial" books, to distribute lists of "objectionable" books or authors, and to purge libraries.' 'The censors, public and private, assume that they should determine what is good and what is bad for their fellow citizens.' * At Stanford University (a private insitution), the Computer Science Department faculty unanimously passed a statement titled: 'Statement of Protest about the AIR Censorship of rec.humor.funny.' It said in part: '... we consider it contrary to the function of a university to censor the presence of newsgroups in University computers.' And, 'The Computer Science Department has also decided not to censor Department Computers.' * Finally, the "Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students" is the primary statement of student academic freedom at both private and public institutions. It is endorsed by the American Association of University Professors, U. S. National Student Association, Association of American College, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and National Association of Woman Deans and Counselors. It says: 'The institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a device of censorship.' 'The student press should be free of censorship and advance approval of copy, and its editors and managers should be free to develop their own editorial policies and news coverage.' -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org
mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) (04/04/91)
|kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes: |lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: |>Only the government can enact censorship. ANS is not the government. |>You can get alternate services. | |The ANS is (according to the first note) "the recent IBM/Merit/MCI |conglomeration that runs the NSFnet backbone." It is thus an |agent of the U.S. Federal Government. A side note: who is paying for this stuff? Doesn't whoever pays become the "publisher", in effect? Haven't we agreed here, earlier, that publishers should be free to publish (or not) what they please? I'm *not* coming down in favor of "censorship", just putting things in a little perspective. I'm of the opinion that the People can still change The State. |As to the proposition that by definition only governments can censor. |Everyone is free to define "censorship" as they wish. Several groups, |however, define censorship is such a way private censorship is |possible: [lots of statements from groups I agree with (heh, I agree with the statements, too :-)] Question: Has ANS actually *done* anything, other than state that they don't want people using the Internet to send things purposely offensive? -- Mark Brown IBM PSP Austin, TX. (512) 823-3741 VNET: MBROWN@AUSVMQ MAIL: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com OR uunet!testsys.austin.ibm.com!mbrown Which came first: The Chicken or the Legba? DISCLAIMER: Any personal opinions stated here are just that.
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (04/04/91)
"Whose paying for all this [MERIT, ANS, etc.]" is you, bud. It's taxpayer money that keeps the INTERNET going. Bob --
mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) (04/04/91)
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: > "Whose paying for all this [MERIT, ANS, etc.]" is you, bud. It's taxpayer > money that keeps the INTERNET going. Thank you, thank you. I now ask...why blame ANS (and the companies hired to run the net) for policies they were in all probability *TOLD* to implement? There's an agency of Government behind all this...hmmm...wonder what would happen if *they* were pressured to do the right thing, given they hold the purse-strings? Hmmm. Mark Brown IBM PSP Austin, TX. (512) 823-3741 VNET: MBROWN@AUSVMQ MAIL: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com OR uunet!testsys.austin.ibm.com!mbrown Which came first: The Chicken or the Legba? DISCLAIMER: Any personal opinions stated here are just that.
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (04/05/91)
In article <6399@awdprime.UUCP> mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) writes: >cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: >> "Whose paying for all this [MERIT, ANS, etc.]" is you, bud. It's taxpayer >> money that keeps the INTERNET going. > >Thank you, thank you. > >I now ask...why blame ANS (and the companies hired to run the net) for policies >they were in all probability *TOLD* to implement? > >There's an agency of Government behind all this...hmmm...wonder what would >happen if *they* were pressured to do the right thing, given they hold >the purse-strings? > >Hmmm. > > >Mark Brown IBM PSP Austin, TX. (512) 823-3741 VNET: MBROWN@AUSVMQ >MAIL: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com OR uunet!testsys.austin.ibm.com!mbrown > Which came first: The Chicken or the Legba? > DISCLAIMER: Any personal opinions stated here are just that. Talk to the NSF, National Science Foundation. It's the lead agency in networking nonmilitary installations and will continue to be so if the Gore NREN bill is passed. Bob Jacobson --
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (04/05/91)
kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie) writes: >The ANS is (according to the first note) "the recent IBM/Merit/MCI >conglomeration that runs the NSFnet backbone." It is thus an >agent of the U.S. Federal Government. See my other note. ANS operates the backbone. However, its business is not limited to MERIT. MERIT is one of its customers. ANS is no more nor less an agent of the government than the phone companies are. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) (04/05/91)
In article <6323@awdprime.UUCP> mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) writes: >I'm pretty understanding of why IBM's such a big target...it *is*. However, >could you explicate *why* you feel this way? I can explain why *I* feel that way, even though I didn't write the article you are replying to. It has nothing to do with being against IBM, per se. It has to do with *any* company calling the shots. I don't like to think that I may somehow be required to follow their policy. So the net's basically held together with cellophane tape and toothpicks. So what? It works pretty good, considering. If IBM got a hold of it, they might turn it into another Prodigy (ugh!!), and that's part of the reason why people talk here instead of there: everyone makes their *own* policy here. If you don't want to carry a newsgroup at your site you don't. If you want to carry alt.sex.small.livestock.and.buxom.blondes you can. If IBM would let such things pass through their hallowed halls, then fine. If not, then they should stay away. I don't think they would let such types of things be allowed on bandwidth. If *any* company were t run this thing, I'd like it to be AT&T (no, I don't work for them or own stock in them). They probably have more experience with data networking than IBM (Prodigy is a good example of their idea of networking). AT&T could basically give a sh*t what goes on as long as they make a buck off of the bills. They don't constantly monitor calls and say "you can't say this", so I doubt they'd do that with a network. IBM has proven themselves capable of doing this: Prodigy again!!! Imagine that! Louis Giliberto louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ! "As above, so below; as below, so above" -- The Kybalion ! ! "I don't trust him; he has dark hair" -- My girlfriend's mother ! ! "So I'm stupid; what's your point?" -- Me !
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (04/06/91)
louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) writes: >It has nothing to do with being against IBM, per se. It has to do with >*any* company calling the shots. I don't like to think that I may somehow be >required to follow their policy. As long as you are using someone else's equipment (especially when you do not pay for the services) you will have to play by someone else's rules. >So the net's basically held together with cellophane tape and toothpicks. So >what? It works pretty good, considering. If IBM got a hold of it, they might >turn it into another Prodigy (ugh!!) [.imminent death of the net...] Just for your information, IBM maintains ownership of the NSSes. No explosions have occurred thus far. (This may have actually changed when ANS was created.) >[...] If IBM would let such >things pass through their hallowed halls, then fine. If not, then they should >stay away. Why not find a provider that will allow you to use its facilities for such purposes? You know... competition, capitalism, etc. Look at Alternet or PSI. If no one will provide you with the service and there are enough of you out there, then someone will enter the market to fill the gap. >If *any* company were t run this thing, I'd like it to be AT&T (no, I don't >work for them or own stock in them). They probably have more experience >with data networking than IBM (Prodigy is a good example of their idea of >networking). Actually, I consider Prodigy a *bad* example of IBM's networking. I much prefer the NSFNET as a better example. And don't forget that NSFNET was created by a contract that went to competitive bid (like most gov't contracts), so at the time, there was nobody else out there who was up to the hardware task. Of course, that's just the hardware. NSF has really been calling the shots in terms of policy. >AT&T could basically give a sh*t what goes on as long as they >make a buck off of the bills. They don't constantly monitor calls and say >"you can't say this", so I doubt they'd do that with a network. IBM has >proven themselves capable of doing this: Prodigy again!!! Imagine that! In a network environment, I believe that IBM would be hard pressed to do this, as it could open them up to liability issues. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) (04/08/91)
>louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) writes: >>It has nothing to do with being against IBM, per se. It has to do with >>*any* company calling the shots. I don't like to think that I may somehow be >>required to follow their policy. You are following the *N S F ' s* policy...they are the poeple paying for this. >>If *any* company were t run this thing, I'd like it to be AT&T (no, I don't >>work for them or own stock in them). They probably have more experience >>with data networking than IBM (Prodigy is a good example of their idea of >>networking). I guess you are quite willing to forget about BITNET or NSFNET. (much less IBM's internal network, which I would guess is easily the world's largest private network). >>AT&T could basically give a sh*t what goes on as long as they >>make a buck off of the bills. They don't constantly monitor calls and say >>"you can't say this", so I doubt they'd do that with a network. IBM has >>proven themselves capable of doing this: Prodigy again!!! Imagine that! You obviously don't read comp.dcom.telecom...in which are related anecdotes about operator 'broadcasting' of "interesting" LD calls, etc. OBLIGATORY DISCLAIMER: I speak only for myself. -- Mark Brown MAIL: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com OR uunet!testsys.austin.ibm.com!mbrown Which came first: The Chicken or the Legba? DISCLAIMER: Any personal opinions stated here are just that.
karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (04/10/91)
In article <6487@awdprime.UUCP> mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown) writes: >(much less IBM's internal network, which I would guess is easily the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ >world's largest private network). I would *guess* that *surely* you are wrong. ;-) -- -- Have Unix system, will travel. Same old story, same old song; Come to Texas for the it goes all right till it goes all wrong. chili that burns twice!! -- Will Jennings
ppham@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (ppham) (04/14/91)
>I'd prefer AT&T over IBM to manage a world net.
Nah, I'd stick w/ someone like UUNET a non-profit organization that also
carries EVERYTHING...emv@ox.com (Ed Vielmetti) (04/17/91)
This was posted to the "commercialization and privatization of the
internet" list, aka "com-priv"; requests to
com-priv-request@uu.psi.com.
(4) ANS networks shall not be used to transmit any communi-
cation where the meaning of the message, or its
transmission or distribution, would violate any appli-
cable law or regulation or would likely be highly
offensive to the recipient or recipients thereof.
--Ed
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1991 13:50:32 EDT
From: "Allan H. Weis" <weis@nis.ans.net>
To: com-priv@psi.com
Subject: ANS Acceptable Use Policy
Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.671305832.weis@nis.ans.net>
Several recent comments have been posted on Com-Priv by persons
concerned about paragraph 4 of the Acceptable Use Policy of ANS. We
appreciate these inputs to such an extent that we are relooking at
paragraph 4 and the myriad of issues and concerns associated with it.
As a result, we are seeking advice from key people to address this
subject, including persons concerned with issues under the First and
Fourth Amendments of the U.S.Constitution and persons from the R&E
community. We expect to receive their output and announce any changes
to our Acceptable Use Policy within 90 days.
Again, thank you for your comments. They helped us focus again on how
best to enhance research and education in the United States.
A.H.Weis