Back to
case page.
jeangoodwin@nwu.edu
Last updated
The Free Speech website, http://faculty-web.at.nwu.edu/commstud/freespeech/
Northwestern Staffer Cancels Spam |
The debate:Note: lightly edited to reduce repetition. |
From: OBJECTOR ONE Newsgroups: nwu.comp.news Subject: Re: Cancelled message Date: 27 Feb 1998 15:58:18 GMT In article .... Ann Golding wrote:
If you have a comment on my cancelling spam, please email me or bring it up here.I have a comment. I'd like someone to point out to me the POLICY which prohibits the posting of commercial messages to nwu.anything. Assume that the postings in question DO NOT originate at NU, and use no NU facilities other than the newsspool. I think there is no such policy. Therefore, I think your cancel is merely your way of enforcing your view of what *you* think belongs here. ONE ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ann Golding I think I might have found a policy that justifies my actions. At http://nuinfo.nwu.edu/it/policies/itpolicy.htm, it says (in part): 12. Computing and networking resources are provided to support the mission of the University. These resources may not be used for commercial purposes. Also, at http://nuinfo.nwu.edu/it/policies/officialpolicy.html, it says (in part):
Individuals covered All persons accessing computer or network resources through any University facility. I submit to you that the nwu.* newsgroups are University network resources, and that anybody using it is subject to the University rules. With that said, I'll say something I've said before: we need a single, clear policy on what's acceptable at NU, including what is and is not permissible on our newsgroups and on our mailservers. Our anti-spam policies are so convoluted as to be nearly unenforcable.
I think there is no such policy. Therefore, I think your cancel is merely your way of enforcing your view of what *you* think belongs here. I am willing to abide by Northwestern's consensus as to what does and does not belong on nwu.*. I began obtaining this consensus by talking to Daniel Krauss (news.acns.nwu.edu is his sandbox, and I want to keep playing in it). Next, I cancelled a clearly-commercial posting in nwu.general that does not appear to have anything to do with the University or any of the University network users. Then, following Daniel's excellent suggestion, I posted here about the cancel. ONE, tell me, do you think I should be cancelling spam on nwu.*? If not, please tell me why. Ann ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: OBJECTOR TWO Although I abhor spam in its many forms, I find myself agreeing with ONE here. I read through the University Network Policies located at: http://www.nwu.edu/it/policies/itpolicy.html The news server is a grey area since other newsgroups are clearly used for commercial purposes (biz.*), so point 12: 12. Computing and networking resources are provided to support the mission of the University. These resources may not be used for commercial purposes. does not seem to apply (ie an exception is made for news). However, the scope of this exception is unclear (ie is it the whole server, only biz.*, not nwu.*, etc). As for Ann, possible rule violations (these are a stretch, but her actions *could* be interpreted as violating these): 2. You may not misrepresent yourself or your data on the network. 11. You must not attempt to monitor another user's data communications, nor may you read, copy, change, or delete another user's files or software, without permission of the owner. Note: This is my interpretation of the rules. My official capacity in IT does not involve interpreting the rules (that's Roger's job), so this has all been MHO. TWO ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ann Golding My rationalization is that nwu.* are University netorking resources, and that news.acns.nwu.edu is the facility by which we access nwu.* and all other newsgroups. I could be wrong. The closest thing to an official opinion on this that I've heard so far has been Daniel telling me "feel free".
As for Ann, possible rule violations (these are a stretch, but her actions *could* be interpreted as violating these):I posted the control message under my own name and account. I don't think there's any case here.
11. You must not attempt to monitor another user's data communications, nor may you read, copy, change, or delete another user's files or software, without permission of the owner.If I deleted "another user's files", I did it wearing my hat as an NU system administrator. If Roger, Daniel, anybody above me in my chain of command, or a clear consensus on nwu.comp.news tells me to stop, I will. So far, it seems to be me and SUPPORTER "against" you and ONE. Okay: if it's not me, should *somebody* be cancelling spam on nwu.*? If not, why not? Ann ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: OBJECTER TWO In article ..... Ann Golding wrote:
If I deleted "another user's files", I did it wearing my hat as an NU system administrator.That's not a hat you have. You are not the news administrator, nor are you an employee of NU ITCS which manages the central servers. You are an administrator for School, probably the largest single division of NU, but you are not an NU system administrator. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: OBJECTOR THREE On 27 Feb 1998 17:34:42 GMT, Ann Golding wrote:
Okay: if it's not me, should *somebody* be cancelling spam on nwu.*? If not, why not?Why not? Plenty of reasons. Its clear that at least one person does not like the idea of University employees exercising censorship on outside news posts based on their own personal opinions. I also find it repugnant that someone might do this on paid University time, thus using my dollars, on their own ideological crusade. That last statement is not to impugn you directly Ann, but the idea that someone might in the future be offically charged with policing these newsgroups. Spam is like any other form of marketing: billboards, magazine advertisements, and television spots. Its annoying, but easily avoided. Here is a question for you Ann: Why do you care about spam so much to want to spend your time sending CANCEL messages? I am happy if you work to prevent the hijacking or flooding of servers since these represent threats to personal use of the network. However, I don't think the rare spams on nwu.* groups warrant your actions. If you have enough free time to pursue this, why not take some time off? The weather is nice enough... ^_^ THREE ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ann Golding Why not? Plenty of reasons. Its clear that at least one person does not like the idea of University employees exercising censorship on outside news posts based on their own personal opinions. Not censorship, system security. Read my followup to [deleted]. I also find it repugnant that someone might do this on paid University time, thus using my dollars, on their own ideological crusade. Not ideological crusade, system security. Let how I use my time be an issue between me and my boss. If you were one of my clients, it might possibly be your concern. That last statement is not to impugn you directly Ann, but the idea that someone might in the future be offically charged with policing these newsgroups.I am charged officially with policing some University systems, as Daniel Krauss and others are. I'm not proposing that we police the newsgroups for Right Thought. I'm proposing that we not permit people to misuse our resources. Spam is like any other form of marketing: billboards, magazine advertisements, and television spots. Its annoying, but easily avoided.Wrong. Folks who advertise using billboards, magazine advertisements, television spots, direct mail and telemarketing all pay for their advertising. The University pays for email and Usenet spam that uses our systems and resources. It's the cost-shifting onto the recipient that makes spam wrong. Here is a question for you Ann: Why do you care about spam so much to want to spend your time sending CANCEL messages? With the right tools, each cancel message would take me about a second. I'm working on getting the right tools to work on my own time. Without those tools, a cancel message takes me about 30 seconds. I am happy if you work to prevent the hijacking or flooding of servers since these represent threats to personal use of the network.It is the duty of NU's system administrators to keep people from misusing NU resources. However, I don't think the rare spams on nwu.* groups warrant your actions. Why should the University pay for someone else's free advertising? Legally, we're bound to not do so by our tax exemption. Morally, we're bound as good net.citizens to prevent spam when we can. If you have enough free time to pursue this, why not take some time off? The weather is nice enough... ^_^That's a damn fine idea. Whatever else happens, I won't be cancelling spam in nwu.* for at least the next week, both to let this discussion happen and because I'll be on vacation :-). Ann ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: OBJECTOR ONE I submit to you that the nwu.* newsgroups are University network resources, and that anybody using it is subject to the University rules.You are reaching. Even if I agree that this policy covers people in Timbuktu whose only contact with NU is that they saw a story about the Unabomber on CNN, it is ludicrous to think that any bozo who can forge a control message is authorized to enforce the policy. I know you wouldn't think anything ludicrous, so you must think you (as opposed to J. Random Bozo) are authorized. My question, therefore, is what makes *you* authorized, but not someone else? With that said, I'll say something I've said before: we need a single, clear policy on what's acceptable at NU, including what is and is not permissible on our newsgroups and on our mailservers. Our anti-spam policies are so convoluted as to be nearly unenforcable. Agreed. Those policies also need to state who enforces them, and how :^) ONE, tell me, do you think I should be cancelling spam on nwu.*? If not, please tell me why. No I do not. The nwu.* hierarchy is a top-level hierarchy just like many others. Nobody appointed Daniel K lord over its contents, and thus his blessing on you is meaningless. I run my own server, and my postings to nwu.whatever don't (have to) involve any IT server in any way whatsoever. I most emphatically do not recognize anyone's "right" to cancel my posts just because they violate (says who?) somebody's idea of what belongs in the group. If you want to control newsgroup content, make the groups moderated (or make them local -- hint hint). I do, however, recognize the USENET "sensibility" that excessively cross-posted stuff deserves nukage. If you base your cancels on a Breidbart index, I am all for it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: OBJECTOR ONE My rationalization is that nwu.* are University netorking resources, and that news.acns.nwu.edu is the facility by which we access nwu.* and all other newsgroups. I could be wrong. The closest thing to an official opinion on this that I've heard so far has been Daniel telling me "feel free". Uh, pardon *me*, but I access nwu.* from my own server. I can receive nwu.* articles w/out touching anything Daniel runs, yet your cancels would prevent that. If I deleted "another user's files", I did it wearing my hat as an NU system administrator. So? You don't administer *any* of the systems involved in this. Maybe I'll start forging cancels for nwu.comp.sys. If you want off-topic posts to go away, either moderate the damn group, or make it local so you can rule it with an iron fist. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ann Golding Uh, pardon *me*, but I access nwu.* from my own server. I can receive nwu.* articles w/out touching anything Daniel runs, yet your cancels would prevent that. Good point. So? You don't administer *any* of the systems involved in this. Maybe I'll start forging cancels for nwu.comp.sys. Strawman. I was acting to keep NU resources from being hijacked by outsiders, not expressing (or suppressing) an opinion. If you want off-topic posts to go away, either moderate the damn group, or make it local so you can rule it with an iron fist. I have no problem with either of these proposals. See my other followup to you (ONE) for a continuation of this part of the discussion. Ann ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ann Golding Heck, we all know darn well that there is no clear policy which authorizes anything like what Ann is doing.No clear policy at all. These are rogue cancels, pure and simple.Bullshit. 1) This was a, single, cancel. 2) There was nothing "rogue" about it, if you accept what other (more organized) spam cancellers have been doing. I cancelled a single spam, I sure as heck didn't censor anybody or remove anybody's privilege to see something. If NU wants them to continue, then NU needs to create a policy which authorizes them.I agree that NU needs a policy allowing spam to be cancelled. Ann ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: OBJECTOR ONE This is not a censorship issue. I did not censor or attempt to censor any messages that were directed at you. This is a network security issue.s/network/national/ [i.e., substitute the word "national" for the word "network"] Do you now see how silly the above argument is??? Using our resources for a commercial venture is against University policy. It also could (theoretically) endanger our tax status.So now you are the University's legal counsel, or do you just play one on the net? Your actions are presumptuous. No sysadmin has a right to censor messages here at NU. Sysadmins have a right and a duty to protect the University's resources against those who would misuse it.You are misusing them, in my opinion. Can I confiscate your computer? How about I just re-issue everything you cancel? Gosh, it looks like two geeks disagree. What a shock! Wouldn't it be nice if there were some POLICY GUIDANCE here, to prevent this kind of thing? It's debatable whether receiving commercial spam on nwu.* is anybody's privilege. If you wish to argue that it should be your privilege, I'd like to know why.The privilege is not to receive a given piece of commercial traffic, it is to receive access to netnews with the confidence that no NU employee has gone out of their way on company time, using company tools, to filter (yes, I am using that word deliberately) that news to fit their personal view of what is appropriate. I agree that we should keep nwu.* local.Racism is OK, but "If you need a web page designed, call 1-888-dumbass" isn't? Puh-leaze. In both cases you are looking at one message, not liking what you see, and zapping it (unless you calculate a BI on it!). But if someone posted a gazillion messages and flooded the newsgroup, it>would be right and proper to cancel them.A gazillion nearly-identical messages? Sure. That's not basing the cancels on content. Clearly, there are times that it is inappropriate to cancel newsgroup messages, and clearly there are times that it is appropriate. What we should (and don't) have is a clear policy deliniating what is and is not acceptable on nwu.*.In the absence of such a policy, you should not be doing what you are doing. As I understand things, it is not appropriate to post commercial messages to nwu.*. Ahh. So now nwu.* can only have "appropriate" messages. This is ridiculous. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ann Golding s/network/national/If you're referring to your own argument, yes, I do. One more time for the cheap seats: I cancelled a single spam, because it was wasteful of University resources and (debatably) in violation of University policy. So now you are the University's legal counsel, or do you just play one on the net?Nope, but I understand that our tax exemption doesn't allow us to support any commercial purpose. Your actions are presumptuous.That may be. You are misusing them, in my opinion. Can I confiscate your computer? How about I just re-issue everything you cancel? Gosh, it looks like two geeks disagree. What a shock! Wouldn't it be nice if there were some POLICY GUIDANCE here, to prevent this kind of thing?One more time ONE: yes, we should have a policy. The last time I brought it up anti-spam policies at NU-CERT, I didn't see you trying to help put one together. Let's have one. If it says that Ann Isn't Allowed To Cancel Spam, I'll obey it. But let's try to have one that's consistent with being a University, and being good net.citizens. The privilege is not to receive a given piece of commercial traffic, it is to receive access to netnews with the confidence that no NU employee has gone out of their way on company time, using company tools, to filter (yes, I am using that word deliberately) that news to fit their personal view of what is appropriate.That sounds something like Daniel's job description. He filters our newsfeed (on news.acns.nwu.edu) to keep our resources from being wasted. Don't you do that for your news server? A gazillion nearly-identical messages? Sure. That's not basing the cancels on content.It seems to me that you're objecting to determining what spam is without using a mathematical algorithm, rather than objecting to spam being cancelled. In the absence of such a policy, you should not be doing what you are doing.Well, before anybody else's knickers get in a twist, I'm going on vacation for a week, and won't be cancelling a single thing for at least that long. If the consensus when I return (yes, ONE, I know what your opinion is) that I not cancel spam in nwu.*, I won't do it again. Ahh. So now nwu.* can only have "appropriate" messages. This is ridiculous.I think that most people agree that Usenet can only have appropriate messages; with appropriate being defined not by content (some newsgroups excepted) but by whether or not it's spam. Ann ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: OBJECTOR ONE It is the duty of NU's system administrators to keep people from misusing NU resources.False. Read http://nuinfo.nwu.edu/it/policies/officialpolicy.html. Your duty is to prevent people from misusing resources you manage. Why should the University pay for someone else's free advertising? Legally, we're bound to not do so by our tax exemption. Morally, we're bound as good net.citizens to prevent spam when we can.You seem mighty knowledgable about NU's legal obligations. I'm rather surprised that NU's own lawyers have permitted the carriage of gigabytes of commercial traffic for so long if NU's tax exempt status hangs in the balance. Either they don't know their job, or you don't know their job. If I were you, modesty would incline me to believe the latter. As for your morality, keep it off my newsspool. You neither own my machine nor supply me with a feed. If I want my news spool to get your stamp of approval, I'll ask for your help. I haven't. Indeed, did *anyone* ask you to start cancelling purported spam in nwu.*? ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Krauss
From: OBJECTOR ONE
Newsgroups: nwu.comp.news
Subject: Re: Cancelled message
Date: 28 Feb 1998 00:30:32 GMT This is going to be the (present) news administrator's definitive statement on this subject:You can only give away what you have yourself. I do not see where your power to inspect articles one by one and individually nuke them comes from. I really don't. |
Back to
|
Copyright © 1998 Jean Goodwin. All rights reserved. jeangoodwin@nwu.edu Last updated The Free Speech website, http://faculty-web.at.nwu.edu/commstud/freespeech/ |
|