From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk] Re: Query: Can Universities limit network access &/or 'spy` on users
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:54:48 GMT
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

[A repost - Carl]

From: kbarger@cellar.org (Kyle Barger)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Query: Can Universities limit network access &/or 'spy` on users
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:35:02 GMT

michaelb@cse.fau.edu (Michael Rogero Brown) writes:

> Basically the situation is this:  We have a department on campus called 
> "Academic Computer Center" which is in charge of the universities Vax.  This
> Vax is the gateway on campus to BitNet and the Internet.  However, student
> accounts on the machine cannot access networks.  Ie, 'ftp', 'telnet', 'rlogin
> 'rsh', and Internet email are denied to these accounts.  If you get a `sponse
> my department (Comp Sci & Eng) we use Unix workstations and do not restrict
> access to networking.  Also the student chapter of the ACM has been running
> a BBS that gives access to some networking stuff and Usenet access.  This was
> done because ACC was not providing it.

No doubt about it, that's tacky.  ESPECIALLY the e-mail piece of it.  In my
mind, it's like saying, "well, we have a library here with a lot of books in
it.  But you can't check 'em out unless it's for a class.  So, guess what,
if you want to read a book about past presidential campaigns and you're not
enrolled in a course in political science, you can't check the book out." 
Is it legal? yes.  Enforcable?  yes.  But it's also not the kind of thing
that promotes a lot of learning.  Just my $.02.

> The reason I had heard for ACC not giving networking access was that it
> would put too much strain on the Vax, despite the fact that all the other
> departmen with machines (like mine) are using the vax for the network
> gateway. 

No doubt there would be a lot of strain on the VAX if everything was
actually done on it.  This part of the argument I can buy; there is a
difference between using the machine as a network gateway and actually doing
the work on it.

> What infuriates me is HOW WOULD THEY KNOW HOW PEOPLE ARE USING THIS STUFF?  
> The only why I see that they would know is if they are spying on student 
> activties, ie reading their mail to see if its serious or not, etc.  Frankly
> this is totally unethical, but is it illegal?  I would think users would have
> some right to privacy in their accounts from the sysadms spying on them.

Well, that depends.  I'm no lawyer, but here's my understanding.  They are
not allowed to eavesdrop if you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". 
(What's reasonable?  I dunno.  Go ask a lawyer.)  If, however, they REMOVE
your reasonable expectation, by saying, "We may monitor you if we feel like
it", then they have that right because they own the system.  In a nutshell,
it depends on what policies are established at your institution.  

Also, it is at least possible that they do not want to have to make
decisions about policing use of net access.  So they have punted by deciding
to make sure the issue doesn't come up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barger                     "Beauty, alas, is not relevant to Usenet."
kbarger@cellar.org      --Brendan Kehoe, _Zen and the Art of the Internet_
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk