[comp.admin.policy] harassing mail

eric@geology.tn.cornell.edu (Eric Fielding) (05/22/91)

   Are sysadmins or departments or universities responsible for
"harrassing mail"?

   I am a part-time sysadmin, and got some complaints a while ago from
someone who received rude mail messages from one of the users of our
system. My attitude was that I didn't think that it was any of my
business to tell people what they could write in their mail messages.
This particular situation seemed to be two people arguing with one
another, one using ruder language than the other. 
 
   The post office doesn't check what kind of mail they get in the mail
boxes. They only investigate in cases of mail fraud as far as I know.
What is supposed to be the situation on computer networks? Do we shut
down "alt.flame"?

				++Eric Fielding
eric@geology.tn.cornell.edu 

rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) (05/22/91)

In article <1991May21.232534.17880@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> eric@geology.tn.cornell.edu writes:
>
>   I am a part-time sysadmin, and got some complaints a while ago from
>someone who received rude mail messages from one of the users of our
>system. My attitude was that I didn't think that it was any of my

  Don't bother to try creating a principle to cover the general case.  Just
do the following:

	(a)  Send a message to the person complained about, indicating that
	     a complaint has been received.  Remind him/her of general
	     responsibilities of users.  Do so in a friendly but firm tone.

	(b)  Send the complainer a message indicating that you have sent
	     such a note.  But remind the complainer that you do not read
	     private email messages, so there is no action you can take unless
	     the abuser's behavior is such as to cause problems which are
	     publically visible.  Suggest that the two users settle their
	     own problems.  Use a friendly but firm tone.

	(c)  Consider whether your wording was sufficiently non-accusatory
	     that you can send each carbon copies of the messages sent to
	     the other.


-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940

mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (05/22/91)

My own feeling is that I make no attempt to censor or preview mail,
but if I get complaints about harrassing, offensive, or libelous mail,
I take them very seriously.

The idea is that we grant people access to our computers for specific
purposes. And that doesn't generally include bashing or defaming other
people.

Now if you want to set up your own computer and your own network, you can
say anything you want. But if we're providing you the computer access
for free, and the network access for free, you have no right to embarrass
us.              
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs
The University of Georgia  |  Athens, GA 30602   U.S.A.
-------------------------------------------------------

kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (05/22/91)

mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:

[...]
>But if we're providing you the computer access
>for free, and the network access for free, you have no right to embarrass
>us.              
[...]

How does this compare with your university's general policies? Does
your university prohibit "embarassing" student organizations from
using "free" university resources such as building space for meetings
or talks?

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

jasonrey@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jason Phillips) (05/22/91)

In article <1991May22.004900.21797@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>
>Now if you want to set up your own computer and your own network, you can
>say anything you want. But if we're providing you the computer access
>for free, and the network access for free, you have no right to embarrass
>us.              

Only one question: do students pay to attend your university?  If so, where
does the 'free' part originate from?

    --- jason

---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Phillips  ----> jasonrey@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Northwestern University

mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (05/22/91)

In article <1991May22.042638.18885@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> jasonrey@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jason Phillips) writes:
>In article <1991May22.004900.21797@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>>
>>Now if you want to set up your own computer and your own network, you can
>>say anything you want. But if we're providing you the computer access
>>for free, and the network access for free, you have no right to embarrass
>>us.              
>
>Only one question: do students pay to attend your university?  If so, where
>does the 'free' part originate from?
>
>    --- jason
>
  (smile)  You obviously have no idea how a university is financed.
  If each student had to pay his share of running the university,
  tuition would be $100,000 to $200,000 per year, or more.

  Some very small private universities do manage to collect nearly
  all their operating expenses from tuition. They are noted for high
  tuition and not having very much to offer.  (Small, mediocre schools
  for the rich.)

  The rest of us have many funding sources:
    -- Tuition (this is a small to negligibly small part of it);
    -- Grants and research contracts (this pays for a whopping large
	 part of the computer facilities at most institutions);
    -- The endowment (in the case of most good private universities,
	 this consists of a large collection of investments that produce
	 large income every year);
    -- Subsidy by state legislature (in the case of most state universities,
	 this covers a LARGE part of the operating expenses, IN ADDITION
	 to income from the endowment [=land grant]).

  My personal opinion is that in-state tuition should be zero. As it is,
  tuition is a very small part of the University's income, and it gives 
  students the unfortunate illusion that they are paying for the
  University's services. In reality, everyone that we admit is thereby
  receiving a large scholarship -- we educate people without making them
  pay anything like the real cost of the education.

  By "for free" I also meant another thing. Computers are generally set
  up by specific units within the University (departments, the computer
  center, etc.) for specific purposes, and users (or users' departments)
  very often do not have to pay the department that owns the computer
  in order to be allowed to use it.
    
  Finally, by "embarrass" I was referring specifically to email intended
  to libel or harrass -- NOT to the ideas expressed in the mail, but rather
  to the intent of carrying out a destructive personal attack.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs
The University of Georgia  |  Athens, GA 30602   U.S.A.
-------------------------------------------------------

mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (05/22/91)

In article <1991May22.040819.29865@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>>But if we're providing you the computer access
>>for free, and the network access for free, you have no right to embarrass
>>us.              
>
>How does this compare with your university's general policies? Does
>your university prohibit "embarassing" student organizations from
>using "free" university resources such as building space for meetings
>or talks?
>
  We do not allow organizations to engage in personal harrassment or
  libel either. And that's the kind of "embarrassing" mail I was talking
  about. I'm not proposing to censor the _ideas_ expressed in the mail.

  There's another difference. Buildings are provided by the university
  as a whole. Computers are provided by specific departments or units
  for specific academic purposes. Net access is heavily subsidized by
  NSF and similar organizations FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURTHERING ACADEMIC
  RESEARCH. It is not a communications common carrier like the telephone
  company or the post office. It has specific purposes which vary
  somewhat depending on exactly where, and how, you are attached to it
  and who's paying.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs
The University of Georgia  |  Athens, GA 30602   U.S.A.
-------------------------------------------------------

scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) (05/22/91)

eric@geology.tn.cornell.edu (Eric Fielding) writes:

>   I am a part-time sysadmin, and got some complaints a while ago from
>someone who received rude mail messages from one of the users of our
>system. My attitude was that I didn't think that it was any of my
>business to tell people what they could write in their mail messages.
>This particular situation seemed to be two people arguing with one
>another, one using ruder language than the other. 
> 
>   The post office doesn't check what kind of mail they get in the mail
>boxes. They only investigate in cases of mail fraud as far as I know.
>What is supposed to be the situation on computer networks? Do we shut
>down "alt.flame"?

You should regard yourself as a 'common carrier' in this case.  Your
job is to deliver the mail, not censor it.  You provide connectivity
service to users, not behavioural control.  If somone doesn't like
the contact of another person, they should take it to the people who
have authority over that person, not the sysadmin.  If you got a rude
letter from your banker, who would you complain to -- the post office
or the president of the bank?

As for dealing with the offended party, inform him that you have no
authority over your users and suggest that he contact someone at your
site who has such authority.
-- 
"SPAM is a registered trademark of a pork product
 packed only by Geo. A Hormel & Co. Corp."
     -- Sun Technical Bulletin, March 1991, pg ii

kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (05/22/91)

mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
[...]
>  Net access is heavily subsidized by
>  NSF and similar organizations FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURTHERING ACADEMIC
>  RESEARCH.

Just a small clarification: NSFNET supports both research and
education.


- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (05/22/91)

Another clarification: If you send me e-mail falsely saying that I was
a Nazi deathcamp guard, you have not (legally) libeled me. The purpose
of libel law is to protect my reputation against false statements.
One condition of libel is it be "published" in the sense that you have
shown the false statement to someone other than me.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

mac@cis.ksu.edu (Myron A. Calhoun) (05/22/91)

mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
<jasonrey@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jason Phillips) writes:
<<mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:

<<<..... But if we're providing you the computer access
<<<for free, and the network access for free, you have no right to....

<<Only one question: do students pay to attend your university?  If so, where
<<does the 'free' part originate from?

<  (smile)  You obviously have no idea how a university is financed.
<  If each student had to pay his share of running the university,
<  tuition would be $100,000 to $200,000 per year, or more.

<  Some very small private universities do manage to collect nearly
<  all their operating expenses from tuition. They are noted for high
<  tuition and not having very much to offer.  (Small, mediocre schools
<  for the rich.)

<  The rest of us have many funding sources:
<    -- Tuition (this is a small to negligibly small part of it);

At Kansas State University, students' tuition pays somewhere between
20--25% of the total cost of running the university.  (The Regents
periodically adjust fees to keep them near 25%.)  In-state undergraduate
fees are currently about $730/semester; non-resident $2,130/semester.

And if you'd like to hear how many Rhodes, Marshall, Truman, ...
scholarships KSU students have received in the last 10 years, I
could probably come up with those outstanding figures, too!
--Myron.
--
# Myron A. Calhoun, Ph.D. E.E.; Associate Professor   (913) 539-4448 home
#  INTERNET:  mac@cis.ksu.edu (129.130.10.2)                532-6350 work
#      UUCP:  ...rutgers!ksuvax1!harry!mac                  532-7353 fax
# AT&T Mail:  attmail!ksuvax1!mac                   W0PBV @ K0VAY.KS.USA.NA

ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) (05/22/91)

In article <1991May22.042638.18885@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> jasonrey@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jason Phillips) writes:
:
>Only one question: do students pay to attend your university?  If so, where
>does the 'free' part originate from?
:

These yearns can be continued ad absurdum.  The like-minded
follow-up question would naturally be should paying a tuition mean a
right to send harassing mail.  (Of course it doesn't, but if one
asks the one question, why wouldn't this logically follow :-). 

...................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi
Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous ftp archives 128.214.12.37
School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland
Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun

rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) (05/23/91)

In article <1991May22.123607.3430@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>  (smile)  You obviously have no idea how a university is financed.
>  If each student had to pay his share of running the university,
>  tuition would be $100,000 to $200,000 per year, or more.
>
[...]
>  The rest of us have many funding sources:
>    -- Tuition (this is a small to negligibly small part of it);
>    -- Grants and research contracts (this pays for a whopping large
>	 part of the computer facilities at most institutions);
>    -- The endowment (in the case of most good private universities,
>	 this consists of a large collection of investments that produce
>	 large income every year);
>    -- Subsidy by state legislature (in the case of most state universities,
>	 this covers a LARGE part of the operating expenses, IN ADDITION
>	 to income from the endowment [=land grant]).

As someone who used to be a student and is now on the other side of the
question as a large lab administrator, I've thought about this a bit.

It's certainly true that the students themselves don't pay the bills for
the facilities.  But, without the students the school wouldn't be able to
get the grants needed to fund labs like the IPL.  So, I feel that telling 
them all to take a flying leap and go buy their own computers is rather 
naive.  Besides, the whole point of a university is to let people learn.

But, I'm curious about the general opinon of people here in this group.
Is this going to be a place for continuous petty spouting of rules and 
regulations and rebuttals?  Doesn't sound all that interesting.  Then
again, I suppose that would be what would be discussed in comp.unix.policy.
Is there a charter somewhere?  (What's the policy on asking for charters? ;)

-- 
Rodney

chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) (05/23/91)

In <1991May22.124033.3668@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:

>In article <1991May22.040819.29865@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>>>But if we're providing you the computer access
>>>for free, and the network access for free, you have no right to embarrass
>>>us.              
>>
>>How does this compare with your university's general policies? Does
>>your university prohibit "embarassing" student organizations from
>>using "free" university resources such as building space for meetings
>>or talks?
>>

I don't know about their policies, but in Mikes defense I would have to
guess YES.  If the student organization is gathering for something
purely defamatory like a "The dean is a fink" rally, I do think they
would deny use of campus resources.  Mike certainly wasn't talking about
topics or content that would be controversial but, as he said in another
post, harassing.

-- 
--
Charles "Chip" Yamasaki
chip@oshcomm.osha.gov

chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) (05/23/91)

In <scs.674919197@wotan.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:

>eric@geology.tn.cornell.edu (Eric Fielding) writes:

>>   I am a part-time sysadmin, and got some complaints a while ago from
>>someone who received rude mail messages from one of the users of our
>>system. My attitude was that I didn't think that it was any of my
>>business to tell people what they could write in their mail messages.
>>This particular situation seemed to be two people arguing with one
>>another, one using ruder language than the other. 
>> 
>>   The post office doesn't check what kind of mail they get in the mail
>>boxes. They only investigate in cases of mail fraud as far as I know.
>>What is supposed to be the situation on computer networks? Do we shut
>>down "alt.flame"?

>You should regard yourself as a 'common carrier' in this case.  Your
>job is to deliver the mail, not censor it.  You provide connectivity
>service to users, not behavioural control.  If somone doesn't like
>the contact of another person, they should take it to the people who
>have authority over that person, not the sysadmin.  If you got a rude
>letter from your banker, who would you complain to -- the post office
>or the president of the bank?

I generally agree, but not in all cases.  In the case of a corporate or
government E-Mail system the function of the gateway and its
administrator might be more than just a common carrier.  Rather, in many
cases it should be regarded as a "liason" to the organization and
"representative" to the external E-Mail community.

I don't mean that E-Mail should be monitored or censored on a regular
basis but,in many cases theadministrator should support the user in
his/her organization in alleviating problems in any way possible,
including blocking mail from offensive parties if requested.

I think interconnectivity is a wonderful thing and it would be a shame
if a corporation or agency had to shut down their gateway because the
administrator told the CEO he was not responsible for the content of
mail and could not effectively help him solve the problem.

The sysadmin should be there to assist their users in ANY way possible.

>As for dealing with the offended party, inform him that you have no
>authority over your users and suggest that he contact someone at your
>site who has such authority.

Further, I think this kind of approach gives a poor image of your
organization.  I know this wouldn't work in our case.  When (I hope
soon) more of our users get on-line I would think management would
consider any harassing mail to be a poor reflection on the
Administration and would want the problem solved posthaste.

I would think that in a case where you are in the same organization or
closely linked you could pass the complaint along to the proper party
yourself (if the grievance sounds legit).  If you are a member of the
same organization and were acting as a representative you could even
have some resolution procedures on paper.  Such procedures might entail:

A Confront the accused in a non-accusational tone.  Do they
| confirm that a message was sent?
|
+-yes-B Get some background info.  Was the content questionable?
|     |
|     C-yes--- Pass the information along to the persons manager.
|     |
|     D-no---- Drop the subject.
|     |
F-no--E-maybe- Ask the complaintant for a copy and attempt to
               authenticate and review it.  Return to B.

In any case I think you should inform the other party that the matter is
being investigated and that you will try to help.  Maybe even attempt to
inform them of the resolution if appropriate.

Of course, this approach might not apply to those administrators of
systems like UUNET or providers of general news and mail feeds, but in
cases where a person who appears to be a representative of an
organization to which image is important, I think the sysop has to
respond positively and quickly or risk losing the resource (gateway) to
"bad press".
-- 
--
Charles "Chip" Yamasaki
chip@oshcomm.osha.gov

HANK@BARILVM.BITNET (Hank Nussbacher) (05/23/91)

In article <1991May22.042638.18885@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>,
jasonrey@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jason Phillips) says:
>Only one question: do students pay to attend your university?  If so, where
>does the 'free' part originate from?

Not all services provided by a university are open to the student body merely
because they pay tuition.  A freshman can't go in and use a $2 million
electron scanning microscope and a sophmore can't walk into the $100 million
particle accelerator and 'try it out'.  The problem with network is that
the true value is hidden from the user.  All one sees is a simple $1000
terminal so one says 'Heck, what damage am I doing here?'

But the cost of the fiber-optic backbones that run throughout the campus,
the Ethernet segments in the buildings, the bridges, repeaters, routers,
the phone lines are all unseen.  It is all underground in some hidden
place.  Each university has at least $2 million in network infrastructure
and many have well past that amount.

So the question then is 'Does paying tuition entitle a student to do whatever
he wants with university equipment since he has paid for it?'  If the answer
is yes, then we might as well pack up and let them play with the colliders.
If the answer is no, then the use of equipment is a privilege and not a
right.  If it is a privilege, then the university is entitled to make its
own set of rules by which the student body has to abide.  Not every
university creates the same set of rules (some don't allow students to use
the network at all) and I guess future students will have to factor in
network policy when selecting their university.  Previously, students have
selected universities by their academic standards, by the campus aura, by
how the dorms look, by how close it is to home or the bar.  Perhaps it is
time that high school students also examine university network policy
before deciding on which university to attend.  If you don't like the policy
of one university, then don't go there.

But please don't say that net-access is a right.  It is a privilege that
should not be abused.


>
>    --- jason
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Jason Phillips  ----> jasonrey@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
>Northwestern University

Hank Nussbacher
Israel

chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) (05/23/91)

According to rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II):
>But, without the students the school wouldn't be able to get the grants
>needed to fund labs like the IPL.

This line of reasoning is specious.  There is a practical infinity of
things without which a university could not function: faculty, staff,
buildings, phones, books, ...

To single out students as essential and therefore give them what
amounts to _carte_blanche_ with university property is unjustified.
-- 
Brand X Industries Custodial, Refurbishing and Containment Service:
         When You Never, Ever Want To See It Again [tm]
     Chip Salzenberg   <chip@tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>

scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) (05/23/91)

chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes:

> [[ a long, thoughtful response to my suggestions to: ]]

>>eric@geology.tn.cornell.edu (Eric Fielding) writes:

>>>   I am a part-time sysadmin, and got some complaints a while ago from
>>>someone who received rude mail messages from one of the users of our
>>>system . . .

>I generally agree, but not in all cases.  In the case of a corporate or
>government E-Mail system the function of the gateway and its
>administrator might be more than just a common carrier.  Rather, in many
>cases it should be regarded as a "liason" to the organization and
>"representative" to the external E-Mail community.

But this is clearly not the case.  Eric is the guy who trundles the
mail cart down the hall.  He is overstepping his own authority if he
attempts to manage user behaviour in any way, shape or form.  Until
then, the proper course for him to take is to put complaintants into
touch with those who have authority.

>I don't mean that E-Mail should be monitored or censored on a regular
>basis but,in many cases theadministrator should support the user in
>his/her organization in alleviating problems in any way possible,
>including blocking mail from offensive parties if requested.

You're actually advocating Eric censor (I hate that word) outgoing mail
from a user over whom he has no authority.  Brrrrr!  If I found our site
postmaster doing this, I'd fire the postmaster.

>I think interconnectivity is a wonderful thing and it would be a shame
>if a corporation or agency had to shut down their gateway because the
>administrator told the CEO he was not responsible for the content of
>mail and could not effectively help him solve the problem.

That's not what was suggested.  There are lots of things Eric could
do to help.  But he should not take those actions unilaterally, and
the CEO (or person in authority) has to be made aware of both the cost
of the actions taken (yeah, rewrite all the sendmail.cf files so as
to exclude mail from person a to person b) and has to take responsibility
for dealing with the end user.
-- 
"SPAM is a registered trademark of a pork product
 packed only by Geo. A Hormel & Co. Corp."
     -- Sun Technical Bulletin, March 1991, pg ii

kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (05/23/91)

>>In article <1991May22.040819.29865@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
>>                                kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
[...]
>>>How does this compare with your university's general policies? Does
>>>your university prohibit "embarassing" student organizations from
>>>using "free" university resources such as building space for meetings
>>>or talks?

chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes:

>I don't know about their policies, but in Mikes defense I would have to
>guess YES.  If the student organization is gathering for something
>purely defamatory like a "The dean is a fink" rally, I do think they
>would deny use of campus resources.  Mike certainly wasn't talking about
>topics or content that would be controversial but, as he said in another
>post, harassing.
[...]

I don't think a "the dean is a fink" rally (or e-mail) should count as
harrassment. The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students,
the main expression of student academic freedom in the US, says:

--(begin quote) ---
B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression

  1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and
discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
publicly and privately. They should always be free to support causes
by orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential
operation of the institution. At the same time, it should be made
clear to the academic and the larger community that in their public
expressions or demonstrations students or student organizations speak
only for themselves.

  2. Students should be allowed to invite and to hear any person of
their own choosing. Those routine procedures required by an
institution before a guest speaker is invited to appear on campus
should be designed only to insure that there is orderly scheduling of
facilities and adequate preparation for the event, and that the
occasion is conducted in a manner appropriate to an academic
community. The institutional control of campus facilities should not
be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the
academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers does
not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed,
either by the sponsoring group or the institution.
--(end   quote) ---
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (05/23/91)

chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes:
[...]
>Of course, this approach might not apply to those administrators of
>systems like UUNET or providers of general news and mail feeds, but in
>cases where a person who appears to be a representative of an
>organization to which image is important, I think the sysop has to
>respond positively and quickly or risk losing the resource (gateway) to
>"bad press".
>-- 
>--
>Charles "Chip" Yamasaki
>chip@oshcomm.osha.gov

Is *this* this official view of OSHA?

Seriously, I think difficulty can often be avoided by appending a
disclaimer to the effect: The views expressed here are the author's
own and do not neccessarily represent the views of OSHA." This is
especially important for newsgroup postings.

- Carl

-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) (05/23/91)

In article <scs.675001777@wotan.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
>
>But this is clearly not the case.  Eric is the guy who trundles the
>mail cart down the hall.  He is overstepping his own authority if he
>attempts to manage user behaviour in any way, shape or form.  Until
>then, the proper course for him to take is to put complaintants into
>touch with those who have authority.
>That's not what was suggested.  There are lots of things Eric could
>do to help.  But he should not take those actions unilaterally, and
>the CEO (or person in authority) has to be made aware of both the cost
>of the actions taken (yeah, rewrite all the sendmail.cf files so as
>to exclude mail from person a to person b) and has to take responsibility
>for dealing with the end user.

I think we need to keep a few things in perspective. First, the sysadmin
is responsible for the smooth operation of the systems under his
control. Generally speaking, the sysadmin usually becomes aware of
"harassment" problem when the "harassee" notifies him of the occurrence.
At that point, the sysadmin should be shown a copy (electronic or
otherwise) of the harassing notes by the "harassee". At no point, has
the sysadmin monitored any email. Most sysadmins have the authority to
warn a user of inappropriate behavior and to deny them access to the
computer system. If you're not sure of that authority, you should check
with your supervisor and straighten that point out. 
Presumably, your site has issued some  type of policy statement that
clearly states what is acceptable use (or what is not) and this
statement should also state the sysadmin' authority. If the "harasser"
persists in the inappropriate behavior then the sysadmin becomes a
liaison for the dept. head (or CEO, etc.) in handling the situation.

I don't think sysadmins are "cart trundlers", censors, judges, etc.
Their function is more similar to an apartment manager, i.e., they
create a workable environment and stay out of the way UNLESS someone
complains about something.
It is not our function to determine what is "obscene", "harassment",
etc. That is for the legal system to decide. It IS our function to be
able to collect the necessary information for others to make those
judgments. In this sense, we are like the police,i.e., patrolling,
responding to complaints, collecting evidence, transferring the evidence
to the judiciary. 

The key point is that an adequate computer usage policy is critical
for enforcing responsible use of computer facilities. The next step is
having some sort of proof that the user is aware of and AGREES to abide
by these rules. As sysadmins, we should focus our discussion on how to
devise this policy statement and how we can enforce such a policy.
I think this should be the main point of this group's discussion.

	-Randy Marchany
	VA Tech COmputing Center
	Blacksburg, VA 24060	
INTERNET: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu

cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) (05/24/91)

In article <1766@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu 
(Randy Marchany) writes:

>It is not our function to determine what is "obscene", "harassment",
>etc. That is for the legal system to decide. It IS our function to be
>able to collect the necessary information for others to make those
>judgments. In this sense, we are like the police,i.e., patrolling,
>responding to complaints, collecting evidence, transferring the evidence
>to the judiciary. 

Wow! Here was I thinking system administration was a technical job
to do with configuration files and backups and so forth, but it's really
"like the POLICE"! Where do people GET these ideas? Certainly NOT from
any unix manual I have ever seen.

If somebody makes harassing phone calls or writes harassing letters,
it is NOT the job of telephone technicians or typewriter mechanics to
deal with the problem in any way shape or form. If somebody needs
their technical assistance THAT is their job (which may include
providing technical assistance to some "investigator" who "patrols",
"collects evidence", "responds to complaints" etc if you happen
to work in an institution that doesn't have better things to do with
it's employees time).

Just because some harassment makes use of a computer does not change the
issue any more than if it happened to be typed on a word processor
instead of a typewriter. Would that make it the responsibility of the
word processing pool to investigate, patrol and collect evidence etc?
Or would it become a sysadmin's problem if the word processor
happened to be part of a corporate LAN? Only the NOVELTY of computer
networks makes people imagine that somehow they raise different
issues when used for harassment. Even word processors are sufficiently
familiar that nobody expects those in charge of maintaining them to
"patrol" and "collect evidence" about what they are used for.

Just because a computer is used to make beeping noises down a telephone 
line to harass somebody, "by email" does not make that a computer issue 
any more than heavy breathing down a telephone line is a telecom issue.

>The key point is that an adequate computer usage policy is critical
>for enforcing responsible use of computer facilities. The next step is
>having some sort of proof that the user is aware of and AGREES to abide
>by these rules. As sysadmins, we should focus our discussion on how to
>devise this policy statement and how we can enforce such a policy.
>I think this should be the main point of this group's discussion.

If somebody is put in charge of "administering" the office mail room,
or the office furniture, are they supposed to "focus" on "enforcing
responsible use" of the mail or the furniture? Why not focus on
delivering the best possible mail service or on having adequate
stocks of furniture available and repairs arranged promtly when
required?

There are real "policy" problems that sysadmins have to deal with,
mainly related to resource allocation between competing priorities.
Although they are economic and management issues that
should be dealt with by people who understand something about
costing of resources etc, in practice computer sysadmins with no skills
in such matters are often forced to deal with them, simply because
others are so completely ignorant of the nature of the resource
constraints involving computers. It would be very helpful if this
group provided assistance in dealing with such real problems instead
of getting absorbed in the fantasy life of people who really wanted
to be police officers rather than sysadmins.

--
Opinions disclaimed (Authoritative answer from opinion server)
Header reply address wrong. Use cmf851@csc2.anu.edu.au

marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) (05/24/91)

In article <1991May23.184642.29771@newshost.anu.edu.au> cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) writes:
>
>If somebody makes harassing phone calls or writes harassing letters,
>it is NOT the job of telephone technicians or typewriter mechanics to
>deal with the problem in any way shape or form.
>
True, but if the investigator asks you for data on the matter, do you
know HOW to collect the data in a form that could stand up in a judicial
arena (company board of inquiry, university honor court, court of
law...)? If not, you could actually impede the investigation. Is your
organization willing to accept liability for that?

>Just because some harassment makes use of a computer does not change the
>issue any more than if it happened to be typed on a word processor
>instead of a typewriter. Would that make it the responsibility of the
>word processing pool to investigate, patrol and collect evidence etc?
>
Of course not, but we're not talking about word processors or typwriters
(see wordprocessor.policy or typewriter.policy, :-)), we're talking
about computer systems/networks. The
overall discussion applies to any unauthorized use (whatever that may be)
of a site's computing resources, be it a single computer or a network of
them.
>
>If somebody is put in charge of "administering" the office mail room,
>or the office furniture, are they supposed to "focus" on "enforcing
>responsible use" of the mail or the furniture? Why not focus on
>delivering the best possible mail service or on having adequate
>stocks of furniture available and repairs arranged promtly when
>required?
>There are real "policy" problems that sysadmins have to deal with,
>mainly related to resource allocation between competing priorities.
>
That's what other discussion groups such as comp.os.vms,
comp.unix.ultrix, comp.unix.admin and the like do. THIS discussion
group should be concerned with the broad area of management policy,
IMHO. 99% of a sysadmins time is spent on the issues mentioned above,
such as resource allocation, setting up the user environment, etc.
Policy enforcement is sort of like insurance, you don't spend a lot
of time thinking about it until you have to.
>
>It would be very helpful if this
>group provided assistance in dealing with such real problems instead
>of getting absorbed in the fantasy life of people who really wanted
>to be police officers rather than sysadmins.
>
My goodness, no need to get personal about this. After all, this is just
a discussion.
Again, I fear we've drifted off course. The real issue is how do
sysadmins deal with unauthorized use of their computing facilities
(single computer or network of computers). I don't think we should get
bogged down in discussing what is harassment and what isn't.
Besides, I don't want to be a police officer, just a pro beach
volleyball player....:-).

	-Randy

etb@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Bushnell) (05/24/91)

In article <1991May23.184642.29771@newshost.anu.edu.au> cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) writes:
>In article <1766@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu 
>(Randy Marchany) writes:
>
>>It is not our function to determine what is "obscene", "harassment",
>>etc. That is for the legal system to decide. It IS our function to be
>>able to collect the necessary information for others to make those
>>judgments. In this sense, we are like the police,i.e., patrolling,
>>responding to complaints, collecting evidence, transferring the evidence
>>to the judiciary. 
>
>Wow! Here was I thinking system administration was a technical job
>to do with configuration files and backups and so forth, but it's really
>"like the POLICE"! Where do people GET these ideas? Certainly NOT from
>any unix manual I have ever seen.
>
>If somebody makes harassing phone calls or writes harassing letters,
>it is NOT the job of telephone technicians or typewriter mechanics to
>deal with the problem in any way shape or form. If somebody needs
>their technical assistance THAT is their job (which may include
>providing technical assistance to some "investigator" who "patrols",
>"collects evidence", "responds to complaints" etc if you happen
>to work in an institution that doesn't have better things to do with
>it's employees time).
>

Not all sys admins are only "telephone technicians or typewriter mechanics"
who are strictly dedicated to machine maintenance.
Some (many?) are also people managers and (reluctant) paper-pushers.
Resolving personnel disputes may well be part of their jobs, and having
"better things to do" doesn't solve any problems.

You're right, of course, in  that the Unix manuals generally
don't feature pages for intelligence(1) or irrationality(7) or
how-to-get-along-with-your-co-workers(8).  8-)
-- 
Eric Bushnell
Univ of Washington Civil Engineering
etb@u.washington.edu

afoiani@nmsu.edu (Anthony "Tkil" Foiani) (05/24/91)

I have to aggree with whoever [sorry, lost the ref] said that SAs are
more than telephone technicians, etc.

You're talking about the difference between a System Administrator and
a System Operator.  An operator is the equivilant of the telephone
technician; he/she/it should not be setting policy or dealing with
users very much.

A System Administrator, on the other hand, is one who does set policy,
and should be the one to deal with complaints directed at his/her/its
system.

A third class is the User Assistant, who exists to help the users; I
mention this only to avoid confusion in the "operator" instance.

Cheers,
Tony
--
Tony Foiani  a.k.a. Tkil  (afoiani@nmsu.edu) or (mcsajf@nmsuvm1.bitnet)
Supporting:  Unix / DOS / VMS / Macintosh / "What's this?"
 "As the water flows over the bridge, |
  As we walk on the Floodland         |  "Rain From Heaven"
  As we walk on the water, we forget  |  _Gift_        
  We forget.  Rain from Heaven."      |  The Sisterhood     

chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) (05/24/91)

In <1766@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes:

>I think we need to keep a few things in perspective. First, the sysadmin
>is responsible for the smooth operation of the systems under his
>control. Generally speaking, the sysadmin usually becomes aware of
>"harassment" problem when the "harassee" notifies him of the occurrence.
>At that point, the sysadmin should be shown a copy (electronic or
>otherwise) of the harassing notes by the "harassee". At no point, has
[more of a very very (ok maybe just one very) thoughtful response]

AMEN.  If we don't provide support to our users someone is bound to
confuse us with Microsoft. 

-- 
--
Charles "Chip" Yamasaki
chip@oshcomm.osha.gov

chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) (05/24/91)

In <1991May23.132025.20299@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>>--
>>Charles "Chip" Yamasaki
>>chip@oshcomm.osha.gov

>Is *this* this official view of OSHA?

>Seriously, I think difficulty can often be avoided by appending a
>disclaimer to the effect: The views expressed here are the author's
>own and do not neccessarily represent the views of OSHA." This is
>especially important for newsgroup postings.

ABSOLUTELY!  You got me there, and I have taken care of it immediately. 
Good point.

Please note that the new disclaimer on my message should also apply to
all of my previous postings.  Sorry for not including it sooner.
-- 
-----------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Charles "Chip" Yamasaki| The opinions expressed here are my own and are not
chip@oshcomm.osha.gov  | supported or even generally accepted by OSHA. :-)
-----------------------+---------------------------------------------------

ben@bucsf.bu.edu (Benjamin Cline) (05/24/91)

In article <283BB48D.13A3@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:


 According to rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II):
>>But, without the students the school wouldn't be able to get the grants
>>needed to fund labs like the IPL.

 >  This line of reasoning is specious.  There is a practical infinity of
 >  things without which a university could not function: faculty, staff,
 >  buildings, phones, books, ...

 >  To single out students as essential and therefore give them what
 >  amounts to _carte_blanche_ with university property is unjustified.
 
I would like to see you start University without students then. At times
it seems that is what the administration here would like to do. As ridiculous 
as it may seem many of us undergrads want an education too. 

	benjamin	
 
--
Benjamin Cline       ------------------------------ *ben@bucsf.bu.edu
235 Harvard Ave.     |Practice: Theory that does  |  benji@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Apt. #1              | function properly.         |  *prefered  
Allston, Ma 02134    ------------------------------ 

ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) (05/24/91)

>In article <1991May23.184642.29771@newshost.anu.edu.au> cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) writes:
>>
>>If somebody makes harassing phone calls or writes harassing letters,
>>it is NOT the job of telephone technicians or typewriter mechanics to
>>deal with the problem in any way shape or form.
:

How come people always come up with analogues that first look so
persuasive on the surface, but always have some fatal basic flaw in
their argumentation.  Deliberate nitpicking or serious counter
arguments? (You may pick your own counter-counter arguments starting
from SysOps and SysAdmins are not "mere" technical maintainers). 

...................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi
Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous ftp archives 128.214.12.37
School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland
Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun

rodney@picasso.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) (05/25/91)

In article <283BB48D.13A3@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>According to rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II):
>>But, without the students the school wouldn't be able to get the grants
>>needed to fund labs like the IPL.
>
>This line of reasoning is specious.  There is a practical infinity of
>things without which a university could not function: faculty, staff,
>buildings, phones, books, ...
>
>To single out students as essential and therefore give them what
>amounts to _carte_blanche_ with university property is unjustified.

Don't forget desks, chairs, and overhead projectors.

I don't think the students get free run of the computer facilities, but
they should be taken into consideration.  Several people here are scoffing
at them because they don't pay anything for the computer labs, the funding
comes from external sources.

My point was simply that there would be no external funding if the school
wasn't there and the students are largely responsible for the school if by
sheer numbers alone.  I'm saying this (not officially or anything) from the
point of view of a staff member.  I'm not a student here that's whining that
no one lets me use the fancy computers.

-- 
Rodney

Paivi.Hyvarinen@hut.fi (Paivi Helena Hyvarinen) (05/27/91)

In article <1991May23.184642.29771@newshost.anu.edu.au>
cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) writes:

   ..."like the POLICE"! Where do people GET these ideas? Certainly 
   NOT from any unix manual I have ever seen.

Would "from my employer" qualify?

A part of my work (the one I get paid real money for :-) is
"enforcing the university computer network rules" - meaning
observing the news, handling complaints from users and starting
investigations if necessary. And I'm not the only one that our
bosses expect to take care of these duties alongsides with the
rest of the system maintenance and technical user support.

When you have over 4000 users on a network (and more coming in
every fall), the job gets less and less technical and more and
more like human management. You spend days after days informing
about the rules, thinking through them, debating them with
colleagues and clients, checking out complaints, discussing them
with the accused offenders and victims, collecting data from
logfiles etc. etc. etc.

Of course, you might say that you will not have anything to do
with police work - but then you most likely won't work here. It
takes all the employees' (and the users'!) cooperation and
critical observation to keep the rules up-to-date and respectful
to both the admin's and the user's rights.  Furthermore, trying
to set a good example is the hardest work of them all.

Paivi

--
@ Paivi Hyvarinen, systems analyst (part time)   @ Paivi.Hyvarinen@hut.fi    @
@ User Services Section                          @                           @
@ Computing Centre, Helsinki Univ. of Technology @ Voice: 358 + 0 - 451 4316 @
@ Otakaari 1 M, SF-02150 Espoo, Finland          @ Reception: U133 Thu 10-12 @

wollman@emily.uvm.edu (Garrett Wollman) (05/27/91)

For several years, before I gave up on PCs as being a bad job, I
followed the twists and turns of FidoNet.  Early on while I was using
that network, they had a very simple policy, which I think is probably
very good advice even for many more advanced networks.  It was this:

	1.  Do not be excessively annoying.
	2.  Do not be excessively annoyed.

-GAWollman

Garrett A. Wollman - wollman@emily.uvm.edu

Disclaimer:  I'm not even sure this represents *my* opinion, never
mind UVM's, EMBA's, EMBA-CF's, or indeed anyone else's.

rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen) (05/27/91)

mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>>
>>Only one question: do students pay to attend your university?  If so, where
>>does the 'free' part originate from?
>>
>>    --- jason
>>
>  (smile)  You obviously have no idea how a university is financed.
>  If each student had to pay his share of running the university,
>  tuition would be $100,000 to $200,000 per year, or more.

Sure?

>  Some very small private universities do manage to collect nearly
>  all their operating expenses from tuition. They are noted for high
>  tuition and not having very much to offer.  (Small, mediocre schools
>  for the rich.)

Why on earth should rich people send their children to mediocre schools?!?
Doesn't make any sense to me. People able to pay those sums you mention
should be able to see if they get anything for their money.
--
|Jesper Lauridsen        |                                          |
| Datalogisk Afdeling    |  "I have things to do and news to read"  |
|  Matematisk Institut   |                                          |
|   Aarhus Universitet   | - rorschak@daimi.aau.dk                  |

sven@cs.widener.edu (Sven Heinicke) (05/28/91)

In article <PAIVI.HYVARINEN.91May27040748@vipunen.hut.fi> Paivi.Hyvarinen@hut.fi (Paivi Helena Hyvarinen) writes:
   Date: 27 May 91 02:07:48 GMT
   In article <1991May23.184642.29771@newshost.anu.edu.au>
   cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) writes:

      ..."like the POLICE"! Where do people GET these ideas? Certainly 
      NOT from any unix manual I have ever seen.
VMS manuals do get into this a bit.

   Would "from my employer" qualify?

Well, the aditude of the employer has a big word in it.  If I had
my way (and disk space) I would have a guest account.  But, if I
did start a guest account the admin and the admin found out
about it (a big if) I would get into big trouble.

--
sven@cs.widener.edu                                  Widener CS system manager
Sven Mike Heinicke                                          and Student
(pssmheinicke@cyber.widener.edu (if you must))
-- 
sven@cs.widener.edu                                  Widener CS system manager
Sven Mike Heinicke                                          and Student
(pssmheinicke@cyber.widener.edu (if you must))

chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) (05/29/91)

According to rodney@picasso.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II):
>I don't think the students get free run of the computer facilities, but
>they should be taken into consideration.

Granted, any computer installation designed without consideration for
the needs of the users is a WOMBAT.  But the control always rests with
the owners.  And, property laws being what they are, that's not likely
to change.  Students who think they own the place are sadly mistaken.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT     <chip@tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
          perl -e 'sub do { print "extinct!\n"; }   do do()'

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) (05/29/91)

   If a person yells in open air a harrasing statement, is the medium, the air, to blame?  Or is the person who is harassing?  The net is in this case merely the medium of communication.  If there are problems, let the offended party use the E-Mailed message as evidence in normal vocal or phone harassment disciplinary avenues.  You are assuming a judicious stance on a personal matter, one better suited for 'personal' policy rather than 'system' policy.                                                       







          

                                    John  Wagner
 

   

chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) (05/30/91)

In <1991May29.025740.499@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:

>If a person yells in open air a harrasing statement, is the medium, the
>air, to blame? Or is the person who is harassing? The net is in this
>case merely the medium of communication.  If there are problems, let the
>offended party use the E-Mailed message as evidence in normal vocal or
>phone harassment disciplinary avenues.  You are assuming a judicious
>stance on a personal matter, one better suited for 'personal' policy
>rather than 'system' policy. 

Where do people get these strange analogies?  You can't compare open air
to E-Mail.  I don't think I should have to explain this one, but anyone
who would make such a ridiculuous statement obviously need it explained.

Open air is a free and absolutely necessary element that is
ever-present.  It is assumed, in fact has been proven to be required
for human survival.  Humans (most anyway) are capable of vibrating
it through the use of their own personal vocal chords, thus causing this
"yelling" phenomenon you discussed, without the use of corporate
resources.  This makes it imparctical, at best to regulate and the
privilige is nearly impossible to revoke.  Therefore, it must be covered
by other policies (which I'm sure it is in many places).

E-Mail on the other hand, is a resource that is not an absolutely
necessary resource to 99% of all corporations or organizations.  It is
normally paid for by the transport supplier, as well as the equipment
used to generate, store, and access it.  Since the PRIVILEGE to use it
may be revoked at any time if its use results in problems that detract
from the organizational goal, the use of it should be treated as a
PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT. 

In virtually any organization I would think that if the wrong person is
annoyed by the E-Mail system (or users thereof) and the problem is not
resolved to the users satisfaction, the system could be disabled and all
of the other users would suffer.

I have seen some outrageous comparisons drawn in this thread, but this
takes the cake.  Speaking of which, E-Mail is like fruit-cake.  If
someone beats you with a fruit-cake we can't just outlaw fruit-cake, so
why pursue those nasty fruit-cake muggers?
-- 
-----------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Charles "Chip" Yamasaki| The opinions expressed here are my own and are not
chip@oshcomm.osha.gov  | supported or even generally accepted by OSHA. :-)
-----------------------+---------------------------------------------------

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) (06/01/91)

   The fellow from occupational health & human services seems to have been at err.  He claimed that it is dificult to stop a person from communicating
via air.  And yet, as he followed to point out, it has happened quite often.  The mere act of passing a razor across the lower end of the tongue is a policy which has been used by many regimes of unbearable dictatorship and in many barbari
c lands noted for hand-chopping, torture, etc.  His advocacy of this method may
indeed prove pleasurable to a bureaucrat, as it simplifies things greatly,
but as an impartial, free-minded citizen of the United States I beg to differ.
	The interesting thing is that he sugested that if a user abuses the network, then the network is to blame.  Prior to this he claimed that networking is a privelege, and not a right.  Well, if I'm not mistaken, at least here at the U.C., the network exists to fulfill a certain purpose.  I.E., it had a cause
for being.  It was not some rich uncle's toy.  That purpose was to be utilized by members of the community as a communications tool far superior to normal methods.  Perhaps this isn`t the case at the OH&HS, but around here the thing is being used.  When certain persons are given control over this network, they often 
feel, as people do, that it could be a tool with GREAT potential at furthering their personal beliefs, moral outlooks, etc.  And so, in the same way that
giving a quarter to a beggar follows from some personal orientation, taking advantage of the network might be for them a responsibility.  And yet, this clashes
with the original intent; to provide an eficient, reliable medium of communication.

				John Wagner
:

jstewart@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Ace Stewart) (06/10/91)

In article <scs.675001777@wotan.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
[...much deleted...]
>attempts to manage user behaviour in any way, shape or form.  Until
>then, the proper course for him to take is to put complaintants into
>touch with those who have authority.


I will modify this a bit considering my own situation, and I have an
idea that a few more of you are in the same. When you are dealing with
a student population, who exactly, is their authority on such matters
if not the sysadmin for computer in question? We're wrestling with
that very problem right now...their parents? I think not.  :)


>You're actually advocating Eric censor (I hate that word) outgoing mail
>from a user over whom he has no authority.  Brrrrr!  If I found our site
>postmaster doing this, I'd fire the postmaster.


Do sysadmins add and delete the accounts? Do they handle diskspace
requests, do they tell them they did "a bad thing" when they tried to
'su root' 25 times in a row? I believe that sysadmins _do_ have some
authority over the users on that system, and now we have to draw an
infamous line of where that authority stops and starts.

How do you control people who attack others on a listserv for
instance? It is a discussionary medium, and many people can be
offended in one piece of mail. Is it right for those people to be told
"we can't do anything"... which comes close to advocating that attack?
Or, alternatively, do we "speak" to the user and "suggest" that
perhaps he could do better? Is there any harm in that as opposed to
passing the complaint-ant to "someone in charge?"

Though perhaps this is sly, a message from "sysadmin" is usually taken
very seriously by the populus of a machine. If that message contains a
well worded suggestion that "perhaps, due to complaints, it would be
best if messages such as these were toned down or stopped," many users
will take notice and the problem is solved.

And, in all that, we're not censoring until a person force-ably stops
outgoing mail, edits it, etc. It is just a suggestion. I ask hoping
for constructive responses... is this a solution?

--Ace
-- 
    Ace Stewart | Affiliation: Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, New York
jstewart@rodan.acs.syr.edu jstewart@sunrise.bitnet jstewart@mothra.cns.syr.edu
   jstewart@sunspot.cns.syr.edu     ace@suvm.bitnet     rsjns@suvm.bitnet

pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (06/15/91)

On 10 Jun 91 16:12:28 GMT, jstewart@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Ace Stewart) said:

jstewart> Do sysadmins add and delete the accounts? Do they handle
jstewart> diskspace requests, do they tell them they did "a bad thing"
jstewart> when they tried to 'su root' 25 times in a row? I believe that
jstewart> sysadmins _do_ have some authority over the users on that
jstewart> system, and now we have to draw an infamous line of where that
jstewart> authority stops and starts.

By the same token, the guy in the company stationery store will or will
not give you pencils and paper.

To me authority means "supervisor" or "manager", not "sysadmin".
Sysadmins are there to make the system work, to provide a service, not
to manage humans. They are technical NCOs, not officers.

jstewart> How do you control people who attack others on a listserv for
jstewart> instance? It is a discussionary medium, and many people can be
jstewart> offended in one piece of mail.

That is the problem of the offendor. And the problem of the offended
party. As soon as you, the provider of the service, get involved, you
have to take issue with the contents of the offensive message. This
requires judgement and legitimate authority. A sysadmin should never get
embroiled in these things.

jstewart> Is it right for those people to be told "we can't do
jstewart> anything"... which comes close to advocating that attack?

Advocating by omission? Are you sure? Personal responsibility no longer
exists?

jstewart> Or, alternatively, do we "speak" to the user and "suggest"
jstewart> that perhaps he could do better? Is there any harm in that as
jstewart> opposed to passing the complaint-ant to "someone in charge?"

Yes, that you are essentially blackmailing the user. Just like the
stationery guy that does not like you and tells you there no more
pencils when the store is full just because he does not like you. Petty
harassment, by people who are in a position of "power". Your duty is to
cooperate with users, whether you think they are "bad" or "good", under
the directives of people responsible for human management. These must
judge, where appropriate, whether behaviour is "good" or "bad", and give
you the relative directives. Otherwise every little petty NCO in every
type of organization can hold everybody else at ransom.

jstewart> And, in all that, we're not censoring until a person
jstewart> force-ably stops outgoing mail, edits it, etc. It is just a
jstewart> suggestion. I ask hoping for constructive responses... is this
jstewart> a solution?

The solution is to know who is in charge and have good human
relationships. Not to take into one's hands petty "authority". You may
reply that if proper behaviour does not work or is otherwise
inappropriate, and there is no hope to rectify the situation, then
expediency wins. Yes, that's true. But then the organization has poor
managers.
--
Piercarlo Grandi                   | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@aber.ac.uk