gazette@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Chris Redmond) (06/18/91)
Following is the text of the report made public yesterday
(formatted for legibility here through the kind assistance
of Walter McCutchan).
Comments on the report have been invited by the
associate provost (computing and information systems),
Dr. Johnny Wong, with a deadline of August 15.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NETWORK NEWS
MAY 30, 1991
INTRODUCTION
A. Universities have a long tradition of investigating all areas of human
activity and of sharing the results of those inquiries with others inside and
outside the University who may be interested. The recent growth of
communication networks for computers have made the sharing much more rapid and
efficient. Arguably, the two most effective means for making these results
available, and thus potentially for advancing the works of many other members
of the University community, are electronic mail (E-mail) to individuals and
network newsgroups, the latter functioning rather like collective mailboxes to
which faculty, staff, and students may choose to subscribe.
Thus, the Committee believes that it is entirely appropriate that the
University of Waterloo, which has a strong reputation for the constructive use
of computers, continue to allocate resources to receiving, storing, and
transmitting items of E-mail and news.
B. Further, the Committee believes that it is important that the University
of Waterloo consult its user community when decisions must be made about the
use of resources which are committed to E-mail and news.
C. Most importantly, the Committee believes that it is the users of the
computing systems who must be held responsible for their decisions to take
advantage of the resources which the University of Waterloo maintains for the
general use of its community. The Committee notes that in some cases items
have been posted which contain lengthy and verbatim excerpts from newspapers,
books, and magazines. Even when the source is fully acknowledged, the
Committee believes that this acknowledgement is not a substitute for a formal
release from the holder of the copyright in the material, usually the
publisher if not the author of the cited words. Thus, in advising users of
the responsibility they bear for what they post, the Committee considers it
important that a warning that the University will not be held liable for
breach of copyright be made plain.
D. Although the University of Waterloo is not under an obligation to
distribute news across campus, once the key role of the user is recognized,
the Committee sees no role for the institution `in loco parentis'. In
particular, we see no need for a Committee, even of one, to monitor the
contents of items, noting that the current daily volume of approximately 11
megabytes arriving at the University makes such monitoring impractical.
E. Again, once the key role of the users of computing resources is
established, the Committee is of the opinion that the University of Waterloo
already has a number of mechanisms in place for handling queries or complaints
should they arise. The Committee sees no need to duplicate these mechanisms.
The Committee believes that complaints should be dealt with in the same manner
whether the offending items originate from UW or from a remote site. It is
clear that a user may reply directly to a poster and may make a more formal
complaint under UW policies in parallel. In either case, the channels
normally used for handling complaints from UW accounts should be used for
those arising from off-campus posting.
However, the nature of electronic communication is such that action often
needs to be more rapid than in dealing with, for example, printed material.
The Committee, therefore, suggests one addition to the existing mechanisms.
In its background documents, Usenet identifies users as responsible for their
actions just as the Committee has suggested the University of Waterloo should.
As a consequence, it is natural for one user who objects to an item posted by
another to reply directly and outline his or her complaint. Such direct reply
is often effective, but does assume enough familiarity with the reply
mechanism of newsgroups or with E- mail on the part of the offended user. A
simple description of each of these processes should be a standard part of the
introduction to computing provided to each new user, whose responsibility it
must be to assimilate the information; the University of Waterloo already
provides very substantial consulting advice, widely distributed across campus,
to assist users in making effective use of the University's computing
resources.
It seems clear that users should retain copies of both the item which was the
source of the objection and of the reply. Such electronic copies carry date
and time 'stamps' which may be useful should a more extensive discussion of
the item prove necessary.
Where the initial item originates from a member of the University of Waterloo,
then the provisions of existing policies should, of course, be available. The
Committee notes that the authors of the report from the Ad Hoc Committee to
Review UW Policy 33 on Ethical Behavior, chaired by Lois Claxton, already
anticipated the extension of the provisions of Policy 33 to cover the area of
computing (IV Recommendations, page 10, first paragraph).
However, electronic items may originate from other sites and it may be
impractical for a user to object directly; furthermore, direct reply may be
ineffective. Only in such situations can the Committee foresee the
desirability of there being a person, designated by the University of
Waterloo, to whom application may be made for assistance.
In recommending such an appointment, the Committee does not envisage such an
official being responsible for dealing with objections from one member of the
University about the actions of another. Nor does it see the official acting
as the 'agent' of an aggrieved user.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the question of the use of resources and the responsibility of users, the
Committee recommends that:
1. The principles which are adopted by the University of Waterloo governing
the use of its computing facilities for storing, retrieving and transmitting
information, be widely disseminated and be included in all introductions to
computing for new users. Particular emphasis should be placed on the
principles which concern such direct methods of communication as E-mail and
network news.
2. The University of Waterloo adopt and widely publicize the principle that,
in sending E-mail or in posting an article to a newsgroup, it is the user and
not the University, who assumes responsibility for its contents.
3. The University adopt and widely publicize the principle that it is the
user, not the University, who is responsible for his or her decision to read a
mail message or an article posted to an electronic newsgroup.
4. The University's primary news-server continue to receive all newsgroups
generated internally and all newsgroups which arrive over the networks to
which the University is connected.
5. The contents of these newsgroups continue to be made available to all
lower level servers.
6. When decisions are to be made re the consumption of computing resources
for newsgroups, those responsible for such decisions should widely and
formally consult with the full user community. In the case of the primary
server, it should be the responsibility of the University Computing Committee
to see that such consultation takes place. In the case of lower level
servers, a well-defined consultative process, approved by the University
Computing Committee, should exist.
On the question of responding to particular items of mail or news, the
Committee recommends that:
1. The University of Waterloo advise its user community that in the first
instance it is the responsibility, not of the University, but of a user who
objects to an item, to reply directly to the poster, making clear the nature
of the objection.
2. A person knowledgeable, particularly about electronic news and mail, but
also well- versed in the general provisions of UW policies, be appointed with
the following general terms of reference:
He or she should:
(A) Be able to identify a suitable authority at a remote site to whom a
request for action might be addressed, when he or she is convinced that the
normal methods for registering an objection have been ineffective. An obvious
example would be the continued posting of objectionable items.
(B) Be able to identify the most suitable authority at the University of
Waterloo to which objections from other sites about material generated at the
University of Waterloo might be referred. Examples of such authorities are
the Ethics Committee, the University Computing Committee, the Dean of a
Faculty; these examples clearly do not exhaust the possibilities.
3. Such an official should report at least once a year on his or her activity
in this area to the University Computing Committee through the Associate
Provost, Computing and Information Systems.
4. The responsibility for the removal of any item from a UW machine, as a
result of an investigation into a complaint, should reside with the Associate
Deans of Computing in each Faculty for machines under their control, and with
the corresponding officers responsible for non-Faculty machines, and with the
Associate Provost, Computing and Information Systems. The Committee presumes
that investigations and decisions will be carried out under University of
Waterloo policies and that where review by a Committee is called for, such
review will be carried out keeping in mind the short retention time for items
in newsgroups.
5. The University of Waterloo's principles or policies in this area clearly
identify the officers who are able to make such decisions.
6. At least once a year actions taken under this authority should be reported
to the University Computing Committee.
The Committee has not made suggestions about how the recommendations should be
implemented in any unit, academic or non-academic. The Committee presumes
that the University of Waterloo will continue to publicize its policies and
procedures which, in turn, will continue to be developed after careful
consultation with the University community. However, the Committee wishes to
point out that if the University of Waterloo appoints an official to assist
users in responding to particular items as has been recommended, then that
official should not also be asked to be responsible for removing items from
circulation; in the Committee's view the two functions conflict directly.
Submitted by:
Greg Bennett, Chair Paul Check
Ian Gibson Anil Goel
John Moore Vic Neglia
Roger Watt, Resource Person Bud Walker
Nancy Zinatelli