When you access the Internet at the University, who’s watching what you type? If the federal government gets its way, law enforcement officials may soon have easier access to your e-mail and Internet telephone conversations.
And you may have to help pay for the upgrades that will make tapping electronic communication easier.
An August order by the Federal Communications Commission requires universities to upgrade computer networks by 2007 to comply with an 11-year-old wiretap law. Installing new Internet switches and routers, at a combined cost of as much as $7 billion, would allow any network communication through university Internet to travel into a network’s operations center where that communication could be packaged and saved for possible evaluation by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation or other agencies.
Some universities have rightfully expressed outrage over the price tag associated with the required upgrades. Every cent of the upgrades would come from universities themselves and the students attending those schools. According to one estimate, this could mean an increase of $450 per student, per year, in order to fund the technological changes.
As Terry W. Hartle, a senior vice president of the Lawyers for the American Council on Education, eloquently told The New York Times, “This is the mother of all unfunded mandates.”
Indeed, in the middle of an education funding crisis, it is beyond ridiculous that universities should be expected to come up with millions of dollars to fund state-of-the-art equipment and staff members to oversee the process, all within the period of less than two years.
Universities will expend much effort dealing with these new system requirements, first in deciding how to fund the whole process (a decision that in itself should be extensively discussed), and then in ensuring the upgrades are made correctly. Institutions of higher education should use their time and money enhancing students’ educations, not spying on their computer networks.
Universities are not yet addressing civil liberties issues surrounding the mandated surveillance upgrades; federal officials must still receive court orders before they can gain access to online communications. Yet previously, law enforcement agents tapped computers on a case-by-case basis, ensuring more privacy for people not suspected of criminal activity. The upgrades will allow much more information to be readily available to law enforcement from afar.
The potential for abuse of this new capability to remotely monitor information runs counter to the goals of universities: to promote an open exchange of diverse views. It would be a shame for students or professors to censor opinions that the current administration might find unappealing.
Evolving technology will undoubtedly necessitate more monitoring of electronic communication. But there is no reason the FBI and other agencies can’t continue using more traditional and low-tech methods of gathering information about specific individuals.
Luckily, Hartle plans to appeal the upgrade order in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. If that court has any respect for specific needs of universities, and the rights of privacy in general, the demand will be reversed.