UPD Crime Log - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 13, 2004

UPD Crime Log

Date: Jul 13, 2004

Are we sure that the "intruders" weren't iTech, looking for "dirt" in the e-mail of some employee's computer? I hear that's been done before.

Date: Jul 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Guns of N.
"Are we sure that the "intruders" weren't iTech, looking for "dirt" in the e-mail of some employee's computer? I hear that's been done before."

I guess anything's possible. If you check out the link above, you'll also notice that some computers are disappearing. Coincidence? Possibly! I just find it interesting and wish that the log went back further.

Date: Jul 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Guns of N.
"Are we sure that the "intruders" weren't iTech, looking for "dirt" in the e-mail of some employee's computer? I hear that's been done before."

Hmmm... Just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, I'll suggest that these breaches were not iTech. Maybe there is a university "plumber's unit"...

[Unrelated thought: Why doesn't the faculty rename itself "iTeach"?]

Date: Jul 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
Unrelated thought: Why doesn't the faculty rename itself "iTeach"?

Now that "handle" - iTeach - would have been the winner!

Date: Jul 16, 2004

Maybe it was an AAUP member preforming some sort of "investigation". It's been done before.

Date: Jul 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" [Unrelated thought: Why doesn't the faculty rename itself "iTeach"?] "

Okay, Mr. Wonderful, this is my vote for Quote of the Week!

Date: Jul 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"Maybe it was an AAUP member preforming some sort of "investigation". It's been done before."

Believe you have this backwards, Seeker. It was the administration breaking into computers and reading emails, not the other way around.

Date: Jul 17, 2004

Andrea

If there was no investigation in Dvorak by the AAUP, Galmser/Stringer would still be teaching at Southern Miss.

Date: Jul 18, 2004

You are very, very wrong seeker. Stringer would not be teaching at USM. Other schools have courted him for years. Now his wife has enough years in the system to retire, so he would have left no matter what. Good people are finding it increasingly difficult to work in the atmosphere the administration has created.

Date: Jul 18, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"Andrea

If there was no investigation in Dvorak by the AAUP, Galmser/Stringer would still be teaching at Southern Miss."

But Seeker, without the work of Stringer and Glamser, USM would still have a VP of Research that doesn't have the credentials for the job. And the public would be totally ignorant of the unprofessional methods SFT was using to run THEIR state institution.

Seeker, you must have a very different view of what is important and very different principles. It scares me to think of what you would have done have done if you worked at Enron and WorldCom?

Date: Jul 18, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"Andrea If there was no investigation in Dvorak by the AAUP, Galmser/Stringer would still be teaching at Southern Miss."

Seeker, you specifically implied that G/S broke into a computer. They did not. SFT and Pileum broke into G&S's computers. Facts are facts.

Date: Jul 18, 2004

Kick--this is important

Date: Jul 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"Seeker, you specifically implied that G/S broke into a computer. They did not. SFT and Pileum broke into G&S's computers. Facts are facts."

Andrea as you know I don't beat around the bush. Had I thought they broke into anything I would have stated so clearly. You are just so hypersensitive over the situation in general it blocks clear thought.

Were either of those computers purchased with the personnel income of Glamser/Stringer? No, they were not, they were state property.

Now I still do not think that it is right for Thames or whoever to as you say snoop, emails. But, as of now there is no policy in place to prohibit it. I can assure you that in the world outside academia, things are very different. As many of you know, I have taken and new job out of state. It is in my employee handbook that emails on the company server can be monitored.

I shutter to think what would happen if many of you were subjected to the work standard that many professions "endure" without a second thought on a daily basis.

Date: Jul 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
" Andrea as you know I don't beat around the bush. Had I thought they broke into anything I would have stated so clearly. You are just so hypersensitive over the situation in general it blocks clear thought. Were either of those computers purchased with the personnel income of Glamser/Stringer? No, they were not, they were state property. Now I still do not think that it is right for Thames or whoever to as you say snoop, emails. But, as of now there is no policy in place to prohibit it. I can assure you that in the world outside academia, things are very different. As many of you know, I have taken and new job out of state. It is in my employee handbook that emails on the company server can be monitored. I shutter to think what would happen if many of you were subjected to the work standard that many professions "endure" without a second thought on a daily basis."

Seeker, you speak the truth.

Date: Jul 19, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"

... I can assure you that in the world outside academia, things are very different. As many of you know, I have taken and new job out of state. It is in my employee handbook that emails on the company server can be monitored.

I shutter to think what would happen if many of you were subjected to the work standard that many professions "endure" without a second thought on a daily basis."

Hi Seeker. I can understand how hourly employees would be wasting company time doing personal business on the company's computer. However, faculty are not hourly employees. It is sometimes more efficient to do personal business at work just as it is sometimes better to do university work at home on my personal computer (without charge to the university).

So I agree with what you say with the understanding that these are two different systems of employment. What is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. Using private sector email policies in a university system destroys communication, something a university is suppose to be all about.

Date: Jul 20, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Seeker
" Andrea as you know I don't beat around the bush. Had I thought they broke into anything I would have stated so clearly. You are just so hypersensitive over the situation in general it blocks clear thought.

Thanks for the 15 second psychotherapy analysis! (Wrong, wrong, wrong).

Were either of those computers purchased with the personnel income of Glamser/Stringer? No, they were not, they were state property. Now I still do not think that it is right for Thames or whoever to as you say snoop, emails. But, as of now there is no policy in place to prohibit it.

Okay, first you say that the computers were state property and then you say that you don't think it's right for SFT to snoop. Sounds like you are the one lacking clear thought here, S.

I can assure you that in the world outside academia, things are very different.

You are comparing apples and oranges. My only comment to this is: so what?

As many of you know, I have taken and new job out of state. It is in my employee handbook that emails on the company server can be monitored.

Again, what is your point? This has nothing to do with the situation at USM or any other university.

I shutter to think what would happen if many of you were subjected to the work standard that many professions "endure" without a second thought on a daily basis."

I think many of the posters here have had experience in other professions (myself included), and would agree that you follow the rules and culture of whatever job you are in. Again (for the 3rd time!), my question to you is: what's your point? Academia and "the business world" are different?

Date: Jul 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Otherside
"

So I agree with what you say with the understanding that these are two different systems of employment. What is good for the goose is not always good for the gander.
"

The running thread from some of the posters here and in the letters to the papers is that academia is not the "real world" and that business is, the assumption being that academia should "get real." I know that many of the posters here have pointed out that Thames's amateurish tactics would fail miserably in the business world as well. But what is so threatening about academia that its culture must be wiped out, made to comply with a largely unrelated model? Why must there be only one way to run an institution? It seems to me that the anger against higher education stems from some underlying fear, but fear of what? Is that some of its core values are, in fact, not about money?

(And where is present professor when I need him/her to help me with the big questions?)

Date: Jul 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
" The running thread from some of the posters here and in the letters to the papers is that academia is not the "real world" and that business is, the assumption being that academia should "get real." I know that many of the posters here have pointed out that Thames's amateurish tactics would fail miserably in the business world as well. But what is so threatening about academia that its culture must be wiped out, made to comply with a largely unrelated model? Why must there be only one way to run an institution? It seems to me that the anger against higher education stems from some underlying fear, but fear of what? Is that some of its core values are, in fact, not about money? (And where is present professor when I need him/her to help me with the big questions?)"

Hang in there, FS. You're handling the big questions well by yourself! Maybe present professor will chime in soon, though.

Date: Jul 20, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Seeker
'Were either of those computers purchased with the personnel income of Glamser/Stringer?"

Seeker, some of your postings before you moved were much better thought through than are the posts after your moves. For example, with regard to your statement which I have reproduced above, are you suggesting that it would be proper for the university to confiscate email from a university-owned computer, but not from a computer purchased with the faculty member's personal income? If that were the case, I am reasonably confident that many, if not most, faculty members would simply bring a desktop computer to their office and use it rather than a university owned computer (thereby protecting its contents from confiscation).

Date: Jul 20, 2004

In fact, Anna, that's what they ought to do as much as possible. What an interesting situation if someone's personal computer were to be seized! The most sensible thing of course would be to use a laptop and to never ever leave it in the office overnight.

Date: Jul 20, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"In fact, Anna, that's what they ought to do as much as possible. What an interesting situation if someone's personal computer were to be seized! The most sensible thing of course would be to use a laptop and to never ever leave it in the office overnight."

I'm not a tax accountant, but the purchase of a laptop by a faculty member should be a tax deductible business expense. I know the argument is that to be tax deductible, it must be equipment the employer doesn't provide, but since the university doesn't provide secure computers for faculty use, then everyone ought to qualify.

I suppose nobody sets the BIOS password on their computers, either...

Date: Jul 20, 2004

on a related note the clarion-ledger had a story about employees losing their jobs because of violations of e-mail policies. if interested, here's the link: http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040720/BIZ/407200366/1005/BIZ

Date: Jul 21, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"In fact, Anna, that's what they ought to do as much as possible. What an interesting situation if someone's personal computer were to be seized! The most sensible thing of course would be to use a laptop and to never ever leave it in the office overnight."

Very sound thought indeed. And to be extra safe, if you are sending emails of a nature that you would not want others to see, I would suggest using a private email account.

Date: Jul 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: truth4usm/AH
"Hang in there, FS. You're handling the big questions well by yourself! Maybe present professor will chime in soon, though."

Fs: you are doing a wonderful solo act . . . . although it is really nice to be remembered.

Not gone -- just extremely busy this summer . . . quietly lurking and staying in touch with the community from a slight distance. Sometimes it is better to be quiet when there are folks around who make it worth tuning in.

Thanks you all -- for continuing to talk and think. In truth, I'm finding myself still trying to work my way through the darkened corridors of the Dome in the summer . . . . to figure out what bodes.

Calm before the storm?

A new and less heavy handed strategy to maintain control?

My biggest focus right now is to protect my nearest colleagues and my unit . . . . and to try to do that without hurting anyone else.

It isn't easy --

Istead of living in a community of give and take, a place where discussion and critical assessment of our core intellectual, academic and community values determine the what programs are central to our mission, we are in a darwinian world where the strongest voices, the most ruthless manipulators, or the biggest bullies are allowed to run riot in the schoolyard. I don't mind Darwin in academia -- but survival of the "fittest" in a university doesn't necessarily mean who draws the most students, raises the most money, or most adroitly positions themselves at the feet of of the caliph . . . . once upon a time university presidents saw part of their job as not just selling a university . . . but explaining it -- remember those discussions of Clarke Keer and Derek Bok?

Now University Presidents truly are CEOs -- and it thius makes sense that much of that should become the job of the Chief Academic Officer of the University (VP, Provost, what have you). So one thing the chief academic officer needs to do is keep reminding the President of what he/she is trying to sell . . . the Provost isn't simply the right hand of the President -- the Provost is the President's academic expert. Or should be. Should be an academic. Should be the best blend of academic and manager, of dreamer and pragmatist a university can find.

I don;t want to overpraise the Flemming administration: there were enough warts for anyone. But if you look back at the work that was done on the mission statement and the university's affirmation of its direction and its future there is a clear and public statement not only of goals but of vision. It is identifiable and it is fairly clear. If you are a new faculty member, you can look at that and say "I can fit into this -- here's how I can shape my teaching, my research, my service to reflect these missions and goals."

This is important -- because without a shared sense of something visionary and a pragmatic program to achieve it, we are all a bunch of erratic satillites orbiting around a sun.

At USM, the the personality of the president has replaced a program. Everything and everyone is subsumed to sucking up to or trying to create as much disstance as possible from that personality and the little planets that spin around it.

We aren't operating rationally here. We are operating within a kind of perverse cult.

That's probably enough for a while. I had intended only to say a quick hello.

Keep up the good work.

The "other" community continues to live in these (and I am sure off line ) discussions.

Fall isn't thatfar away.

Date: Jul 25, 2004

Hi Present Prof.! Thanks for another eloquent essay. They are always inspirational. We've missed you. Drop in every now and then. I think you're long overdue for the quote of the week award (you would have won it ten times over had Mr. Wonderful been giving awards in the spring).

Date: Jul 25, 2004

This thread seems to be a good place to remind everyone that if it were not for Gary Stringer and Frank Glamser, the faculty would still be dealing with Jack Hanbury & Mark Dvorak.

Date: Jul 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"

Andrea as you know I don't beat around the bush. Had I thought they broke into anything I would have stated so clearly. You are just so hypersensitive over the situation in general it blocks clear thought.

Were either of those computers purchased with the personnel income of Glamser/Stringer? No, they were not, they were state property.

Now I still do not think that it is right for Thames or whoever to as you say snoop, emails. But, as of now there is no policy in place to prohibit it. I can assure you that in the world outside academia, things are very different. As many of you know, I have taken and new job out of state. It is in my employee handbook that emails on the company server can be monitored.

I shutter to think what would happen if many of you were subjected to the work standard that many professions "endure" without a second thought on a daily basis."

Seeker,

You certainly did imply that AAUP members were breaking into offices at USM and using other people's computers without permission.

But that aside...

You've never said why you think computer use policies that allow managers to read employees' emails are right. You've just said that that many organizations have adopted them.

So...

Why should any business that does not practice "throughput monitoring" adopt a computer use policy similar to USM's?

Robert Campbell

PS. Do you think that Shelby Thames would be deterred from ordering an employee's computer broken into, just because the employee paid for it, instead of the university?

Date: Jul 26, 2004

As usual, Seeker misses the point about computer policy at USM. The angle that using the computer and email for personal use violates policy is bogus. So is the claim that personal use of the telephone is an example of misuse. USM acts as both an ISP provider and a long distance carrier to the public. They allow private ISP accounts and have had a sign at the help desk advertising that fact. It is one of the many money-making endeavors the university has undertaken. They also are a long distance provider in competition with other commercial providers. I have an account that allows me to call anyone anytime anywhere (why not, I am at USM) either from home or work. Consequently, it cannot be a misuse of university property. In regard to using ones own personal computer, a few folks are doing that and using a modem to connect to a private provider rather than going through the USM servers. I suspect that monitoring emails of someone who uses that arrangement violates the law. Neither can the university confiscate property it does not own unless it involves an illegality. In that case, it would take a criminal warrant. It also should be pointed out that snooping and monitoring are not the same thing. SFT got into the snooping business because he was hacked off at people that either disagreed openly with him or were critical of him. He snooped because he has rabbit ears, not because he was following USM policy.

Date: Jul 26, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
"SFT got into the snooping business because he was hacked off at people that either disagreed openly with him or were critical of him. He snooped because he has rabbit ears, not because he was following USM policy."