Solution Set for Assignment 1 -- Computer Abuse Policy

Case I. Cornell student X, who knows nothing about figure skating, sends email to ten friends, all of whom are Cornell students and all of whom share similar opinions and political views. The email is a list of 75 reasons "why male Figure Skaters should not be allowed freedom of speech".

Answer. This would probably be classified as "Hate Speech" and therefore would not be a violation of Cornell's policy. See the "Hate Speech" bullet in the subsection What are NOT violations of Cornell University policy of the web page mentioned in the assignment.

Case II. Cornell student X, who knows nothing about figure skating, sends email to the entire Cornell University internet domain (i.e., "@cornell.edu"). The email is a list of 75 reasons "why male Figure Skaters should not be allowed freedom of speech".

Answer. This case is less clear than the preceding one. One could argue that, like Case I, this is an instance of "Hate Speech" and therefore not in violation of the policy.

One might argue that this e-mail is "Unsolicited email or junk email" which (by definition) would not be a violation of the Cornell policy. But the Cornell policy does prohibit "Email bombing" and "Interfering with activities of others" (specifically: "posting many messages to a single news group or mailing list making it difficult for subscribers to carry on their normal discussion") and that might apply here. Cornell has created a "bulk mail" service for students, faculty, and staff, which sends out authorized mass mailings in a carefully metered fashion so as not to be disruptive. Had the author of the offensive email used this service, then it will be easier for the accused to argue that there was no intent of "Interfering with activities of others."

Case III. Cornell student X, who knows nothing about figure skating, sends email to the entire Cornell Figure Skating Club. The email is a list of 75 reasons "why male Figure Skaters should not be allowed freedom of speech".

Answer. This case is again like Case I. But "Harassment," which is defined in Cornell's policy by

Electronic communication that is repeated and unwanted may constitute harassment. In general, communication targeted at a specific individual with the intent to harass or threaten is a violation of Cornell policy.

would be a violation. (Note-The second sentence in the above is the definition; the first sentence only gives an example.) The homework problem statement does not give enough information for deciding whether the necessary "intent" or "unwanted" elements are present in this case. The argument for Email bombing" and "Interfering with activities of others" becomes more germane than for Case I (and less so than for Case II), because of the larger number of individuals targetted as recepients.

Case IV. Cornell student X writes a program that, once started, migrates to each UNIX site in the Cornell University internet domain and then terminates, doing no harm and consuming virtually no resources. Student X then runs this program, being careful to start it during the winter recess, when the university's network and computers are lightly utilized so that no user is inconvenienced. The program runs and terminates as as expected, with nobody noticing.

Answer. This is a violation of Cornell policy. Student X is using resources (specifically, computers) that X does not have authorization to use in order to run this program. The Cornell University Policy Regarding Abuse of Computers and Network Systems, states

Just because you are able to circumvent restrictions or security, doesn't mean that you are allowed to do so.

Case V. Student XX obtains the program written by student X of Case IV and modifies that program as follows. Upon reaching each computer, the program inspects the directories on that computer and reports back to XX any files that contain known viruses. Student XX then runs this program, being careful to start it during the winter recess, when the university's network and computers are lightly utilized so that no user is inconvenienced. The program runs and terminates as as expected, with nobody noticing.

Answer. This is a violation of Cornell policy for the same reason as given for Case IV. In addition, it constitutes unauthorized access to data or files, which is also a violation.