From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Privacy on Novell Lans
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:06:27 GMT

digital@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Digital) writes:

[...]
> Is there any relavant literature pertainingf to this?  Anything available
>for FTP that they could get in order to help their case?
[...]

(Aside: are teachers being spied on, too?  If so, see _Gillard v.
Schmidt_, reference enclosed.)

In _New Jersey v. T.L.O._, the Supreme Court said:

Public school officals can search a grade or high school student "when
there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn
up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the
law or the rules of the school. Such a search will be permissible in
its scope when the measure adopted are reasonable to objectives of the
search are not excessively intrusive in light of age and sex of the
student and the nature of the infaction.{6}"

Quoted on p. 82 of the ACLU Handbook: _The Rights of Students_, 1988.

Also from the Handbook:

"States can set stricter standards, for example, Louisiana, requires
full probable cause."

"[Question:] Can student be subject to mass searches?
 [Answer:] No. The Supreme Court [has not dealt with this.] But a
number of federal and state courts have ruled that there must a
reasonable suspeicion directed speciacally at each student before a
school offical can search students. ..."

"States courts, statutes, and local practices vary widely on the
question of when students' lockers and desks can be searched."

Here is the Privacy section of the unoffical, draft Statement
on Computers and Academic freedom:

"III. Privacy

Principle: Personal files on university's computers (for example,
files in a user's home directory) should have the same privacy
protection as personal files in university-assigned space in an
office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate student's
desk). Private communications via computer should have the same
protections as private communications via telephone."

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/gillard-v-schmidt
=================
Description of an appellate court ruling that the school board could
not search the desk of a school counselor without a warrant.

=================
caf-statement
=================
This is an attempt to codify the application of academic freedom to
academic computers. It reflects our seven months of on-line discussion
about computers and academic freedom. It covers free expression, due
process, privacy, and user participation.

Comments and suggestions are very welcome (especially when posted to
CAF-talk). All the documents referenced are available on-line.

=================
=================

To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):

  send caf-law gillard-v-schmidt
  send acad-freedom caf-statement

The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
  pub/academic/law/gillard-v-schmidt
  pub/academic/caf-statement

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
Xref: sparky alt.privacy:1027 misc.consumers:10417