From: comp-academic-freedom-talk-request@eff.org Reply-To: comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org Precedence: bulk To: comp-academic-freedom-talk Return-Path: Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 04:42:14 -0500 Sender: "Carl M. Kadie" Subject: New NCSA e-mail policy inconsistent with Academic Freedom Status: R [Enclosed is a copy of a note I posted in "uiuc.general," a campus-wide newsgroup at the University of Illinois. I also sent e-mail copies to the administrators who approved the policy and to several Professors interested in these issues (including the president of the local chapter of the AAUP). Following this note, expect copies of the policy in question and my notes from a conversation with Michael Smith of the NCSA. I will, of course, keep the list informed as to what happens. - Carl Kadie] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The new NCSA e-mail policy permits searches and punishment of faculty, students, and researcher who "attack" the University, or the NCSA in e-mail. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) is a department in the University of Illinois' Graduate College. On April 1 [no kidding], the NCSA set down a new e-mail policy. The policy was cleared by the University's legal counsel and the Graduate College. Faculty, students, and researchers, however, were not consulted. Although the policy offers much good advice and addresses legitimate security concerns, it is overly broad and vague. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the principles of Academic Freedom, Constitutional rights, and University policies with respect to freedom of expression and privacy. The policy should concern all users of NCSA's e-mail facilities. It should also concern anyone who sends e-mail to a NCSA user or through a NCSA managed network. Finally, it should concern anyone who believes that the principles of academic freedom (including freedom of expression and privacy) apply to computers. In a sense, this note is not constructive. I will not suggest an alternate e-mail policy. Instead, I will criticize the current policy. It is my hope that criticism will lead to the retraction of the current policy and creation of a more balanced policy that respects the rights of computer users. Specifically, here are nine criticisms (in no particular order): 1) The policy was created without user representation. The faculty, students, and researchers who use NCSA e-mail should have helped form any policy. Also, any University committees concerned with Academic Freedom should have been consulted. 2) NCSA contracts with industry are not an excuse to override academic freedom and individual rights. One attempted justification of the policy is that the NCSA is contractually obligated to provide security and confidentiality to industry. This is no justification at all. Contracts with industry must be made within the boundaries of Academic Freedom. 3) E-mail to users at the NCSA from outside the NCSA deserves more protection. Under this policy, searches of a user's e-mail will be typically conducted by inspecting that user's mbox file. If you send e-mail to a NCSA user, your note might end up in his or her mbox. If the mbox file is searched, your note might be read (without any suspicion about you and without the permission of the addressee). 4) The policy gives the Director extraordinary power with no check and balances. No search can be done without explicit authorization from the Director of the NCSA. The Director, however, reports to no one. 5) Due process is not guaranteed in the policy. If a user (faculty or student) is found to have committed an offense, he or she should have the right to a formal hearing and the right of appeal. Also, some of the due process that is provided is not guaranteed in writing. For example, there is an unwritten policy that the Director cannot delegate the authority to authorize a search. This protection should be make explicit. 6) The policy fails to respect e-mail. The policy allows disk space to be searched, but there is no similar policy allowing telephones or campus mail to be monitored or offices to be searched. Privacy should be respected in all its forms. 7) The policy is vague. It prohibits e-mail that "attempts to disadvantage NCSA." What does this mean? It prohibits "inappropriate information disclosures," but does not define "inappropriate". 8) The policy may prohibit constitutionally protected speech. According to Michael Smith, the Associate Director of the NCSA, the phrase "attempts to disadvantage NCSA" prohibits attacks in e-mail on the NCSA and the University. This interpretation (of a vague phrase) is inconsistent with the First Amendment, Academic Freedom, and University policy. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" This amendment also applies to the States and to State institutions such as this University. It protects your right to forcefully criticize institutions such as the NCSA and the University. The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students it the main statement on the academic freedom of students. It has been endorsed by the American Association of University Professors, the U. S. National Student Association, and the Association of American Colleges. It says: "Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and independent search for truth." Faculty's freedom of expression is, of course, also protected by Academic Freedom. The University of Illinois Code on Campus Affairs says: "STATEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS I. Preamble A student at the University of Illinois at the Urbana-Champaign campus is a member of the University community of which all members have at least the rights and responsibilities common to all citizens, free from institutional censorship; affiliation with the University as a student does not diminish the rights or responsibilities held by a student or any other community member as a citizen of larger communities of the state, the nation, and the world." ... "III. Campus Expression A. Discussion and expression of all views is permitted within the University subject only to requirements for the maintenance of order. [...] C. The campus press and media are to be free of censorship. The editors and managers shall not be arbitrarily suspended because of student, faculty, administration, alumni, or community disapproval of editorial policy or content." ... "VI. Student Affairs [...] B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression 1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and to discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions publicly and privately. [...] 2. Students should be allowed to invite and hear any person of their own choosing. [...] The University's control of campus facilities should not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed either by the sponsoring group or the institution." 9) The policy may allow constitutionally prohibited search. The Fourth Amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." A government institution, such as this University can not ignore these protections just because it owns the facilities [Mancusi v. DeForte 392 U.S. 364, 368 (1967); Gillard v. Schmidt 579 F.2d 825, 829 (3d Cir. 1978)] University privacy policy is described in the Code on Campus Affairs. I think University rules concerning assigned office space provide the best model of how disk space and e-mail should be treated. "IV. Privacy A. Members of the University community have the same rights of privacy as other citizens and surrender none of those rights by becoming members of the academic community. These rights of privacy extend to residence hall living. Nothing in University regulations or contracts shall give University officials authority to consent to a search by police or other government officials of offices assigned or living quarters leased to individuals except in response to a properly executed search warrant or search incident to an arrest. B. When the University seeks access to an office assigned or living quarters leased to an individual to determine compliance with provisions of applicable multiple-dwelling unit laws, ordinances, and regulations, or for improvement or repairs, the occupant shall be notified of such action not less that twenty-four hours in advance. There may be entry without notice in emergencies where imminent danger to life, safety, health, or property is reasonably feared and for custodial service. C. The University may not conduct or permit a search of an office assigned or living quarters leased to an individual except in response to a properly executed search warrant or search incident to an arrest." In conclusion, the new NCSA e-mail policy is inconsistent with the constitutional rights and the academic freedom of faculty, students, and researchers. It says that freedom of expression and the right to privacy to not extend to computers. I urge the NCSA to rescind the policy. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign