When you say "A. Dvorak and SFT" do you mean AND or do you mean AND/OR?

If it's AND, then some of those names don't make sense. If it's AND/OR then you're telling a whole different story.

LVN:

I mean "AND" and this was an attempted to minize the issue!  The names my not make sense but they were monitored!

There were flagrant,ugly crimes being commited. Thank God someone was awake. I don't want people tossing my social security number around like a piece of trash.

Due vigilance wrote:

---

There were flagrant,ugly crimes being commited. Thank God someone was awake. I don't want people tossing my social security number around like a piece of trash.

---

Please tell us, "Due Vigilance", what "ugly crimes" were commited and by whom.  Thank you.

Do you think the Chief was trying to find out the identy of Guru Nuberg, my favorite poster?

and that document was released to WDAM by none other than Ms. Mader Math herself.

If this list is true, think about the broad net it cast----how many people's privacy was invaded--the emails to our students, colleagues at other universities, faculty we were trying to hire. Absolutely horrible.

A little history:

Dvorak's husband ran HR at the time and scoured everyone's complete files (have you checked yours since then?), Hanbury ran the legal interference, and PILEUM (aka Jill Beneke, ex-Worldcom employee) was running iTech at the time and set up the email monitoring mechanisms.  Evil crowd.  And as non-academic in purpose as they come.

Clique et Claque wrote:

---

Strange Basement Sounds wrote:
Missing in Action wrote: Do you think the Chief was trying to find out the identy of Guru Nuberg, my favorite poster? I've often wondered about the Guru. Maybe he went underground and is still among us.
The original and chief rumormonger?  Still here but a lot less funny after last month's over the top sabotage of a colleague.  Should be doing some "breech of confidentiality" penance now but a severe lack of personal responsibility probably interferes.

---

Sorry, Charlie. I'm still watching, though mostly from a greater distance. Nice try, though.

Retiree 3 wrote:

---

If this list is true, think about the broad net it cast----how many people's privacy was invaded--the emails to our students, colleagues at other universities, faculty we were trying to hire. Absolutely horrible.

---

If you are under the impression that a USM e-mail account is private you are sadly mistaken. The account belongs to USM, not the individual using it. The case law on this is very clear as this issue is often raised in the corporate world when an employee finds out that their employer has read an e-mail sent via the employee’s company e-mail address. In the case of USM, one should assume that the USM e-mail accounts for faculty and staff are even less private (if that is possible) as the USM IT system is state (public) property. A student may be able to claim some reasonable expectation of privacy on the grounds that they pay for their e-mail account as part of their tuition. This claim however may be negated if the student has been provided with a copy of the university’s rules and policies and said rules and policies clearly inform the student that their university provided e-mail account is subject to monitoring. This issue has been beaten to death before. Please move on to something more important. The issue is not that Thames et al read e-mails but how they acted upon what they read.  

Coast Resident, you are correct that we have beaten this issue to death, and also that a case can be made that employees should not reasonably expect privacy on the employer's computer system.

I also agree that the issue is more one of what was done with the information?
For instance, no student would expect to have their private email to a faculty member read aloud at a public hearing, as was done to Rachel Quinlivin.

But I think there is another issue as well -- how was the information actually obtained? If it was obtained by breaking into the faculty members' offices at night, as appears to have been done in some cases, then that certainly exceeds any employee's reasonable expectations of privacy.

Any of you who still use USM computers for ANYTHING other than strictly work related matters should be out shopping for your own computer. You probably should not be posting to this board from your USM computer. If you have to post from campus, you should use a library computer.

Of course, my son (systems security analyst) tells me that there is not really any privacy on the web anymore.

Sanders was Bud Ginn's secretary for a bit. Don't know if she still is.

Communications Attorney wrote:

---

You are correct on the law.  Monitoring of university e-mail traffic is both legal and commonplace.

---

I don't doubt you for a minute, counsel, but just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical.

Retiree 3 wrote:

---

Coast resident--I know that our USM email was/is not private. Nevertheless, I would like to hold the university to a higher standard of conduct than I do the corporate world. Idealistic? Ivory tower? Yes. But if I dump that dream, I believe that the way the monitored email was used (the email off the server) and that breaking into offices to get emails sent before the monitoring began is wrong, wrong, wrong.

---

Retiree 3, I would certainly agree that Thames’ management style has much to be desire and his past actions are not the way to win friends and influence people. My disagreement is with statements posted like: “There were flagrant, ugly crimes being committed” and “how many people's privacy was invaded” and “breaking into the faculty members' offices at night.” Faculty offices are also state (public) property and are subject to inspection at will. I would say doing so with out good cause and in the absence of the faculty member is bad form but it is not “breaking into” (this phrase suggest an illegal act) their office. To often on this board extreme statements are made and positions taken that do nothing to benefit (if not harm) the purpose of this board.