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