Note: This has all been adjudicated by the Deans now; read all the way to the bottom, or skip there if you've been here before

If you actually attend Swarthmore College at the time, you might have noticed that the printers on campus were selectively removing words from printouts on April 1, 2002.

Being as it was (purposely) made common knowledge that I was involved, I seem to be taking ITS's direct ire for this. Their formal complaint to the deans, scanned in several formats (PNG is prettier, GIF is way smaller; yes, smaller than PNG would be with only two colors in the palette), is linked below. I see no statement of presumption of their privacy in the documents I received and I'm not too concerned about mine, so I see no problem making this public record.

Cover page PNG GIF
Page 1 PNG GIF
Page 2 PNG GIF
Page 3 PNG GIF

In addition to the above, I received a printed copy of the Phoenix article [Internet Archive in case the original disappears] with selected portions highlighted. I haven't scanned that, since it seems rather silly to do so. Specifically, the highlighted sections were this:
His program, which he sent to public printers several times Monday,
(which is not, technically, true; someone else, who has good reason to want to remain nameless at this point, did the loading later in the day, but that's sort of immaterial as it was always part of the plan) and this (for which a little context is necessary):
[The problem disappeared when a computer told the printer to deactivate the preloaded Postscript commands, Rosenkoetter said.] One of his friends had sent those instructions to all the affected printers by 7 p.m. Monday night.
Myself, I'd like to draw attention to this passage:
Marc Richards '02, a public area lab manager for ITS, spent part of his evening reconfiguring the McCabe computers for the new print server, but he said the switch to the new server needed to be done soon anyway and was not what really solved the problem. In the end, "it fixed itself," Richards said.
If you're interested in a bit more background about this whole thing, you might want to read the explanation of how the prank functioned that I sent to SLUG, including corrections by Branen Salmon and the full list of words censored (which, it seems, ITS didn't actually include in their complaint or Tedd Goundie, reasonably, didn't forward to me).

Update: as of 20020612 this was resolved by my paying Swarthmore College $250 US, the sum Tedd Goundie felt was appropriate. (Remember, the $1600 US figure was just what ITS asked in their request for adjudication.)

Anyway, I'd be glad to hear anything you have to say about it. Note that if you're going to transport that opinion through Swarthmore's servers, you may want to encrypt it. If so, you'll need my PGP public key and an OpenPGP-compliant program to do the encryption. I use GnuPG.