e-mail surveillance - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 22, 2004

e-mail surveillance

Date: Jun 22, 2004

Well, check out these suggestions from the Chronicle article. To the best of my knowledge, none of this is incorporated into USM's computers/e-mail policy.

"Even so, an optimal e-mail-privacy policy might include a few additional elements. For example:

The inevitable conditions under which privacy may be justifiably breached should be fully detailed, as should the process by which "critical operational circumstances" are to be determined, and by whom.

If time permits -- and it would be hard to imagine conditions so urgent as not to permit -- every effort should be made to alert the user so that he or she can seek legal counsel.

The policy should make clear that where an intrusion or diversion does occur, the contents of any affected messages should not be used or disseminated any more broadly or retained for a longer time period than the basis for such action would warrant.

A comprehensive computer-use and privacy policy should deal with myriad related questions -- like the terms and conditions of "acceptable use" materials that may validly be barred from being sent or received on university computers, the procedure for filing a complaint about an alleged misuse of the system, or the process for appealing any limitation imposed on access to the system -- and not simply those that have occasioned controversy or, in extreme cases, have landed the university in court."

Date: Jun 22, 2004

Who Owns Professors' E-Mail messages?

by Robert M. O'Neill

http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v50/i42/42b00901.htm

The intro to the article:

"The recent settlement of a bitter controversy at the University of Southern Mississippi left one major issue unresolved. Two professors who had been openly critical of a high-level administrative appointee faced possible dismissal, and the president received a faculty vote of no confidence. The termination proceedings against the two faculty members were stopped after extensive negotiations, and the president remained in office. But the issue that won't go away, and that first surfaced at a mediation hearing between the professors and the university, concerns the privacy of a faculty member's e-mail messages. The incident raises, once again, questions about the legal status of electronic communications on campuses today.

During the hearing, which produced an otherwise satisfactory accord, the university's president stated that, after learning of the two professors' challenge to the credentials of the new vice president for research, he had directed a university lawyer to monitor the e-mail messages of certain faculty members. Such action, claimed the president, was appropriate because the faculty critics had "disparaged [the vice president] in an attempt to make her ineffective" and did so "with reckless disregard for the truth." His justification for examining faculty e-mail messages included allegations that the critics had misused state property and had undermined confidence in the university administration.

Faculty reaction to reports of that intervention was swift and predictably critical. Noel Polk, a professor of English who had followed the saga closely, expressed outrage at presidential surveillance of faculty communications, citing the action as a major reason for declining faculty confidence in the president. The central premise of Polk's position, and similar protests from other university professors, is one that deserves closer scrutiny: that faculty members' e-mail messages are private communications, to which the access of administrators without consent poses potentially grave threats to academic freedom.

Although the issue was hardly unknown to academic administrators when it arose at Southern Mississippi, it has received surprisingly little attention."

Date: Jun 22, 2004

Word on the street is that SFT and company broke into the hard drive of Stringer's computer long before it was "seized." There are folks who could (if they would) terstify that this was ordered for other professors' computers--long before the G/S incident.

Date: Jun 22, 2004

O'Neill's article is timely, but it omits what I believe is the most damning piece of "evidence" given in the "hearing": emails from and to Rachel Quinlivan, a student, that were sent/received in her private email account and could be read (I presume!) only because they passed through the university server (through the addresses of her correspondents, if I remember correctly). Thames tried to use these emails to accuse Rachel of corruption. Fortunately, his effort was so transparent that outrage and laughter (at his claims) were our respones.

But this remains the most horrible instance of his surveillance and his use of others' private correspondence: the effort to discredit a fine student, specifically the editor of the student paper, with correspondence that could in no way be judged to have originated in the university system.

NO QUARTER.
Anne Wallace

Date: Jun 22, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Ditto boy
"Word on the street is that SFT and company broke into the hard drive of Stringer's computer long before it was "seized." There are folks who could (if they would) terstify that this was ordered for other professors' computers--long before the G/S incident. "

Even if nobody were willing to testify, the evidence submitted by the attorneys for the prosecution during the G&S hearing may very well reveal that the e-mail surveillance began before the January date testified to, and may extended well beyond G&S. The hearing was public. Surely a transcript of the hearing is public. This needs to be addressed by the FS and the PUC pronto.

Date: Jun 22, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lamont Cranston
" Even if nobody were willing to testify, the evidence submitted by the attorneys for the prosecution during the G&S hearing may very well reveal that the e-mail surveillance began before the January date testified to, and may extended well beyond G&S. The hearing was public. Surely a transcript of the hearing is public. This needs to be addressed by the FS and the PUC pronto. "

The evidence submitted by the attorneys for the prosecution during the G&S hearing should be part of that public record also.

Date: Jun 22, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lamont Cranston
"The evidence submitted by the attorneys for the prosecution during the G&S hearing should be part of that public record also."

I've this is going to happen, but there is lots of it, so getting it online might take a while.

I do know that the evidence contains e-mails from individuals unrelated to Glamser and Stringer: Rachel Q. and Myron Henry, and also the advisor to the Student Printz. So any assertion that they were "just monitoring those crooks, G and S" is a lie.

Date: Jun 22, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Anne Wallace
"O'Neill's article is timely, but it omits what I believe is the most damning piece of "evidence" given in the "hearing": emails from and to Rachel Quinlivan, a student, that were sent/received in her private email account and could be read (I presume!) only because they passed through the university server (through the addresses of her correspondents, if I remember correctly) . . ."

I have heard that Rachel Q.'s was an AOL e-mail account, not a USM e-mail account. This should be easily documentable, one way or the other. Somebody, perhaps the Faculty Senate or the PUC, should definitely examine the evidence presented by the prosecution at the G&S hearing, and compare it with the actual testimony. I fail to understand why this has not been done already. This could possibly lay the issue to rest - or it could end the ballgame!

Date: Jun 22, 2004

We tussled with this question on the old board, and never came to an answer. What are the rights of a person using a private account whose email happens to go through the USM server? If I send you to on campus, does that give USM the right to read and use that email in whatever way it wishes (which is what happened to Rachel) -- a lot was said about the rights of the Univ as far as its own employees go, but does the sender also forfeit rights? Apparently SFT thinks so.

If I send from my private account to your private account and you access your private account from USM's server (dumb move, don't do it) does USM then have rights to my message?

It's a can of worms, we all agree, which is why more safeguards, not fewer should be built into the policy. BTW I no longer send anything but the most innocuous messages to anyone with a usm.edu address.

This issue needs to be kept alive so that when a fresh new crop of people arrive in August, they are warned.

Date: Jun 22, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"We tussled with this question on the old board, and never came to an answer. What are the rights of a person using a private account whose email happens to go through the USM server? If I send you to on campus, does that give USM the right to read and use that email in whatever way it wishes (which is what happened to Rachel) -- a lot was said about the rights of the Univ as far as its own employees go, but does the sender also forfeit rights? Apparently SFT thinks so. If I send from my private account to your private account and you access your private account from USM's server (dumb move, don't do it) does USM then have rights to my message? It's a can of worms, we all agree, which is why more safeguards, not fewer should be built into the policy. BTW I no longer send anything but the most innocuous messages to anyone with a usm.edu address. This issue needs to be kept alive so that when a fresh new crop of people arrive in August, they are warned."

But was there a discrepancy between the e-mail evidence furnished by the prosecution's attorneys vs. the actual verbal testimony given by the USM administration during the hearing?

Date: Jun 22, 2004

it's unfortunate that the entire chronicle article can't be posted here. i would recommend people read all of it. it addresses what the courts have held in this area, what the aaup is doing (updating its policies), and what other universities are doing and should consider doing. one point it makes is that e-mail shouldn't be considered like a letter--a more apt metaphor is a postcard where anyone who handles it can read what's on it.

Date: Jun 22, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Lamont Cranston
"But was there a discrepancy between the e-mail evidence furnished by the prosecution's attorneys vs. the actual verbal testimony given by the USM administration during the hearing? "

I'm not sure about this. But there certainly was a discrepancy between what they told the press and what was in the packet of evidence.

Date: Jun 22, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"it's unfortunate that the entire chronicle article can't be posted here. i would recommend people read all of it. it addresses what the courts have held in this area, what the aaup is doing (updating its policies), and what other universities are doing and should consider doing. one point it makes is that e-mail shouldn't be considered like a letter--a more apt metaphor is a postcard where anyone who handles it can read what's on it."

For $7.50, you can subscribe to the Chronicle for a month and get on-line access immediately. You can cancel at any time with no long term commitment.

Date: Jun 22, 2004

i get it. but i've seen excerpts posted that i think are incomplete and don't do justice to the article.

Date: Jun 22, 2004

We'd post the entire article, but there's this little matter of copyright.

Date: Jun 22, 2004

i know. but the excerpts posted so far don't do justice to the entire article. the legal holdings so far are quite interesting and answer, for instance, LVN's questions. folks, when the print version comes out, read it.

Date: Jun 22, 2004

People should be able to read it electronically after a week has passed from its issue.

Date: Jun 22, 2004

The suggestion that someone (or ones) examine the packets of evidence (for prosecution and defense) and the transcript made of the hearing is a good one. Lots to talk about there.

All these documents are available from Amy Young, I've been told. Once they've been studied, there ought to be an AAUP initiative to begin developing a humane USM-specific email policy that would protect our privacy in reasonable ways. If a committee to come up with a new drug policy, why not one for this? The thing now in place is a crude joke.

Date: Jun 22, 2004

Security problems exist in several areas. They can record phone conversations as they are routed through the main switchboards. They can monitor email through the servers, or by computer examination. Our offices are bugged Re: our activities via our USM computers, which they seize anytime they want.

Get your own computer and a non-USM email address and do not tie into their system. Do your critical work at home. Give them the BS emails and phone conversations about how great they are. Assume everything is bugged and few are to be trusted. If you use a USM computer, delete History and other things, log files, etc, on a regular basis and install a data shredder or overwriter and use it on a regular basis.

I followed this board and internet sites a good while before posting, and then only after reading the Privacy policies of Sparklit (“We do not share, sell, rent or barter any identifiable personal information to any third party without your permission.”). An internet board is not generally a good secure place. In fact, it may NOT be the place to be (does this board leave cookies on this computer? Yes….some labeled ArraytopicID for those topics you have read, and SparkKey = apparently your ID #; also remember to delete and shred History files.). Use a browser that you can set to delete cookies when you exit the internet. Anyone can enter, read, or post; spies can know what you know as soon as it is posted (so this board may be almost useless with respect to secrecy and planning).

This is not a nice place. But one can last longer here if he is a little paranoid.

Date: Jun 22, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"i get it. but i've seen excerpts posted that i think are incomplete and don't do justice to the article."

I realize that you must because you started this thread. The info about the cheap subscription was meant to help other people who don't have access. I'm guilty of posting just the front end that referenced USM. Someone else posted conclusions. I know it is incomplete but Amy Young asked that we not post entire articles. How did a "live" address work (without a subscription) on FireShelby to the original Chronicle article about USM?

Date: Jun 22, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Through
"Security problems exist in several areas."

Yes, it’s appalling to consider what’s possible and even more appalling to learn what’s legal. Nonetheless, I think we should concentrate on what’s ethical. If I were to stand in front of a class and humiliate a student, or frequently show disrespect for the class, I assume I would be justly fired for cause. How can it be that the administration is not constrained in any way in its treatment of us?

Date: Jun 22, 2004

Ditto, Tinctoris.

Date: Jun 22, 2004

If I worked at USM right now, I would discuss certain things via email only with people who have encrypted & digitally signed their messages.

Sure, if the University decides to monitor your communications it can get a subpoena for your private key, but that slows things down considerably & forces them to contact you.

Frankly, I think USM's IT department has bigger fish to fry than pandering to the president's paranoia, but what do I know?

Date: Jun 22, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Through
"Security problems exist in several areas. They can record phone conversations as they are routed through the main switchboards."

This weekend I heard on radio news that, with AT&T and other major answering-service providers, messages which you have deleted from your phone may still be retrieved. Are your office phones safe?

Date: Jun 22, 2004

Time to take up "outdoor celling" if you have not already done so!

Date: Jun 23, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
"We'd post the entire article, but there's this little matter of copyright."

The Chronicle some time back told me that one may request a free link from time to time if an article is relevant to a target audience. Apparently that was how the original Chronicle article was linked to the AAUP site. Certainly an article qualifies for a free link when it names USM in the first paragraph, and it would be good if someone could request the link.

Greetings to all from England, by the way, and sorry for the silence though I've been keeping up with the board. I spent early June in Oxford (y'know, the original one) and am now in Cambridge, and have been doing some research at the two repository libraries here. (I'll be a bit at the British Library next month as well.) I haven't actually heard the phrase "World-Class University" over here--what is talk, after all?--but both establishments seem to be doing okay.

Date: Jun 23, 2004

I have copies of the transcripts, the evidence that the administration submitted for the hearing, and the evidence submitted by the attorneys for Glamser and Stringer. I am happy to share this information, including having it put on reserve at a library. There is some pretty interesting stuff in the packets regarding email surveillance. When I get back from my archaeological field school (mid July), I'd be happy to move on this.

Amy Young

Date: Jun 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Amy Young
"I have copies of the transcripts, the evidence that the administration submitted for the hearing, and the evidence submitted by the attorneys for Glamser and Stringer. I am happy to share this information, including having it put on reserve at a library. There is some pretty interesting stuff in the packets regarding email surveillance. When I get back from my archaeological field school (mid July), I'd be happy to move on this. Amy Young"

Amy:

I agree. As you remember, this came up in the PUC and a number of strategies were presented. So far we have heard of no new committees being created to deal with the surveillance issue -- although one is clearly necessary and in the most urgent fashion.

This is an issue I'm prepared to spend some time on -- it seems to me AAUP can create an ad hoc committee and so can faculty senate to specifically address policy and make recommendations.

Date: Jun 24, 2004

To follow up on Stephen Judd's comment:

The PUC/PC came up with a "solution" (review of requests to conduct email surveillance by a committee including two faculty members) that was a nonstarter.

It was a nonstarter because Thames, if interested in snooping on some faculty member's email, would have it done through other channels, bypassing the committee.

Remember that Thames has denied having Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer's email intercepted before mid-January 2004. He has denied snooping on anyone else. And he told the Hat Am that he never issued a written order to spy on FG and GS's email. Does anyone believe any of these statements? Why does anyone think Thames would cooperate with a committee that was put in place to limit his snooping?

If the Faculty Senate can put forth a strong policy--one that includes dismissal from employment as a penalty for anyone, including administrators, who spies on other people's email in violation of the policy--favorable publicity will be assured, and the burden will be on Thames and his backers to explain why they are rejecting the policy.

If Thames thinks he can return to the "normal" exercise of unlimited power by August (as the Guru suggests in today's mill), all the more reason for the Senate to get moving on this matter. The more time SFT has to spend explaining to the media why he must exercise unlimited authority to intercept employees' (and students') communications, the bigger his (and his backers') headaches will become.

Robert Campbell