Re: Is ths legal?...
On Dec 16, 1995 18:37:05, 'Jay Holovacs <holovacs@styx.ios.com>' wrote:
I was told today that students at Oklahoma University have their computer accounts subject to administrative inspection and that encryption (even email) without escrow is prohibited. Maybe the story is not quite straight
but federal law supposedly protects personal electronic communication and I somehow don't think OU can overide this simply because it passes thru their computers.
First, it may not be true. Second, if it is true, people frequently define the ability to do something as a "privledge" not a "right." As in a hypothetical "Use of student accounts at O.U. is a privledge extended to the students by the University. By using our computer you keep to our rules, including abandoning any notion you might have that your communications are in any way private" etc. etc. --tallpaul
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, tallpaul wrote:
Second, if it is true, people frequently define the ability to do something as a "privledge" not a "right." As in a hypothetical "Use of student accounts at O.U. is a privledge extended to the students by the University. By using our computer you keep to our rules, including abandoning any notion you might have that your communications are in any way private" etc. etc.
I believe there is a supreme court case that essentially says that a public entity cannot define something as either privledge or right. I'm not sure the name, but the EFF has an abstract available. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: PGP Signed with PineSign 2.2 iQCVAwUBMNN6WjokqlyVGmCFAQG6BwQAqqJhzk7BzJ+9Gmbl8Esf+8zcxVzEfAw+ GgPr8AMNz0KzgkOHDZsQOwqFM5wVqkpk8bzSUTCHu5YW8/ORfXHB7b/lmn03qkBd ZZFEldfhoZFINfm4tdAd/8YfWF0WZeXiuDsRqJA/V4iRyIRj9+axpUPOFefDqkMD gQR8KyPuSrw= =Wagv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu \ /__ Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Finger for PGP Public Key \/ / -=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=- \/ http://krypton.mankato.msus.edu/~hayden/Welcome.html -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GED/J d-- s:++>: a-- C++(++++)$ ULUO++ P+>+++ L++ !E---- W+(---) N+++ o+ K+++ w+(---) O- M+$>++ V-- PS++(+++)>$ PE++(+)>$ Y++ PGP++ t- 5+++ X++ R+++>$ tv+ b+ DI+++ D+++ G+++++>$ e++$>++++ h r-- y+** ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, Robert A. Hayden wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, tallpaul wrote:
Second, if it is true, people frequently define the ability to do something as a "privledge" not a "right." As in a hypothetical "Use of student accounts at O.U. is a privledge extended to the students by the University. By using our computer you keep to our rules, including abandoning any notion you might have that your communications are in any way private" etc. etc.
I believe there is a supreme court case that essentially says that a public entity cannot define something as either privledge or right.
I this ruling would prevent the Supreme Court from defining something as a privledge or right. It would also pose this limitation on states, as they are public entities, and thus driver's licenses cannot be defined as one or the other, which as we all very well know, they are. I'm
not sure the name, but the EFF has an abstract available.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: PGP Signed with PineSign 2.2
iQCVAwUBMNN6WjokqlyVGmCFAQG6BwQAqqJhzk7BzJ+9Gmbl8Esf+8zcxVzEfAw+ GgPr8AMNz0KzgkOHDZsQOwqFM5wVqkpk8bzSUTCHu5YW8/ORfXHB7b/lmn03qkBd ZZFEldfhoZFINfm4tdAd/8YfWF0WZeXiuDsRqJA/V4iRyIRj9+axpUPOFefDqkMD gQR8KyPuSrw= =Wagv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu \ /__ Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Finger for PGP Public Key \/ / -=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=- \/ http://krypton.mankato.msus.edu/~hayden/Welcome.html
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GED/J d-- s:++>: a-- C++(++++)$ ULUO++ P+>+++ L++ !E---- W+(---) N+++ o+ K+++ w+(---) O- M+$>++ V-- PS++(+++)>$ PE++(+)>$ Y++ PGP++ t- 5+++ X++ R+++>$ tv+ b+ DI+++ D+++ G+++++>$ e++$>++++ h r-- y+** ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
--- My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, Black Unicorn wrote:
I this ruling would prevent the Supreme Court from defining something as a privledge or right.
It would also pose this limitation on states, as they are public entities, and thus driver's licenses cannot be defined as one or the other, which as we all very well know, they are.
I am appending the file from the EFF that talks about the privledge/right distinction. There is a URL as part of the file. ========== =============== ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/faq/just-a-privilege =============== q: If a state university calls computer or network access a "privilege", can they remove an individual's access arbitrarily? a: In most cases no. U.S. courts no longer recognize the wooden distinction between privileges and rights [Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)]. One need only look at the Constitution to see that "privilege" is often used to mean something different than its informal use. The 14th Amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;". The Constitution also refers to the "privilege of the writ of habeas corpus", "privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States", and "privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses". In _Goss v. Lopez_, the Supreme Court said a "student's legitimate entitlement to a public education is a property interest which is protected by the Due Process Clause and .. may not be taken away for misconduct without adherence to the minimum procedures required by that Clause." The Court went on to say that "the Due Process Clause also forbids arbitrary deprivations of liberty. 'Where a person's good name, reputation, honor or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him,' the minimal requirements of the Clause must be satisfied." So what are a university student's property rights? "The Fourteenth Amendment requires due process before a governmental entity, such as a public institution, may deprive one of life, liberty, or property. In a college setting, a student's good name and reputation are considered a 'liberty' right, and a student's right to attend college is considered a 'property' right. Due process would be required before a student is deprived of either at a public institution." [_A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D. Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985).] So is a student's computer access a property right? I'd say it depends. On one extreme, I'm confident a student has a property right in account financed via the student computer or engineering fee. On the other extreme, if a professor informally gave a student an account on that professor's personal workstation, the professor could probably remove that access without due process. So what about department accounts? In the departments I know of, accounts are given to any students who meet some set of requirements. I think this makes them an entitlement for the students who qualify and hence some modicum of due process is necessary. ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) =================<a href="http://www.eff.org/CAF/faq/due-process.html"> faq/due-process =================</a> * Due Process q: Should users be suspended from the computer pending formal discipline? a: No, with one exception. Just as students should not be expelled ... =================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/academic/student.freedoms.a aup"> academic/student.freedoms.aaup =================</a> * Student Freedoms (AAUP) Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main U.S. statement on student academic freedom. =================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/goss-v-lopez.mnookin"> law/goss-v-lopez.mnookin =================</a> * Due Process -- When Required -- Goss v. Lopez -- Mnookin Comments from _In the Interest of Children_, R. Mnookin (Ed.), Franklin E. Zimring and Rayman L. Solomon (Contrib. Authors). It reports that the Supreme Court says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter is trivial or there is an emergency. =================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/goss-v-lopez.fischer"> law/goss-v-lopez.fischer =================</a> * Due Process -- When Required -- Goss v. Lopez -- Fischer Comments from _Teacher's and the Law_, 3rd edition, by Louis Fischer, et al. Published in 1991 by Longman. It reports that the Supreme Court says that some modicum of due process is necessary unless the matter is trivial or there is an emergency. =================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/constraints.constitutio nal"> law/constraints.constitutional =================</a> * Constitution -- Public University -- Constraints Comments from _A Practical Guide to Legal Issues Affecting College Teachers_ by Partrica A. Hollander, D. Parker Young, and Donald D. Gehring. (College Administration Publication, 1985). Discusses the constitutional constraints on public universities including the requires for freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, specific rules. ================= ================= If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command gopher gopher.eff.org These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org, and then: cd /pub/CAF/faq get due-process cd /pub/CAF/academic get student.freedoms.aaup cd /pub/CAF/law get goss-v-lopez.mnookin cd /pub/CAF/law get goss-v-lopez.fischer cd /pub/CAF/law get constraints.constitutional To get the file(s) by email, send email to ftpmail@decwrl.dec.com Include the line(s): connect ftp.eff.org cd /pub/CAF/faq get due-process cd /pub/CAF/academic get student.freedoms.aaup cd /pub/CAF/law get goss-v-lopez.mnookin cd /pub/CAF/law get goss-v-lopez.fischer cd /pub/CAF/law get constraints.constitutional -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: PGP Signed with PineSign 2.2 iQCVAwUBMNRs8zokqlyVGmCFAQGgRwP/e2fqRuiVrDWGWuYAnq1IQhUlhULSPlGY f8/2+N2/VqblVFsXyOBDA6YgwzTiFgiljOVFo2Bxw3RYyBDxWxr6yDS7BxGf7Zdp QjhIPP7fAk6wNKu3ACwtq3iap9BsOGcZlF2fGrP3B0jsDQtFxosGMNUiPH8HPs5Z l1QTiAyZ8yw= =F7PT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu \ /__ Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Finger for PGP Public Key \/ / -=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=- \/ http://krypton.mankato.msus.edu/~hayden/Welcome.html -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GED/J d-- s:++>: a-- C++(++++)$ ULUO++ P+>+++ L++ !E---- W+(---) N+++ o+ K+++ w+(---) O- M+$>++ V-- PS++(+++)>$ PE++(+)>$ Y++ PGP++ t- 5+++ X++ R+++>$ tv+ b+ DI+++ D+++ G+++++>$ e++$>++++ h r-- y+** ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 16-Dec-95 Re: Is ths legal?... by tallpaul@pipeline.com
Second, if it is true, people frequently define the ability to do something as a "privledge" not a "right." As in a hypothetical "Use of student accounts at O.U. is a privledge extended to the students by the University. By using our computer you keep to our rules, including abandoning any notion you might have that your communications are in any way private" etc. etc.
Exactly. If Oklahoma University is private, it can establish and enforce policies that would be unconstitutional at public schools. Those policies become part of the contract and a student must abide by them, except when they are administered arbitrarily and capriciously. At a public universities, students probably would have more freedom to challenge this policy. A recent article from the school's student newspaper says: "In the third part, the policy states that the university reserves the right of access to user e-mail... Personal passwords may not be used to prevent access. In the fourth part, the policy states that e-mail is neither private nor confidential. The fifth part states important documents should be saved in the computer or converted to hard copy." (http://www.uoknor.edu/okdaily/issues/fall1995/dec-7/1-email.processed.html) To me, "personal passwords" sounds like a student newspaper trying to say "encryption." I've copied this message to a grad student privacy advocate quoted in the article and to the student newspaper. Perhaps they can shed more light on the situation. The best way to work against totalitarian administrators is to shine a bright light on their repressive policies. -Declan
participants (4)
-
Black Unicorn -
Declan B. McCullagh -
Robert A. Hayden -
tallpaul＠pipeline.com