In your recent articles regarding Internet privacy, there are three issues that were not fully examined: property, public vs. private information and motivation. In layman’s terms, why on earth would a bunch of geeks residing in a nearly windowless tomb of a building care to violate one’s privacy? Let’s first examine what the Computing Center can and cannot do with the current policies that are in place.
A computer, network or any other similar device has an owner, hence the term “property.” Like all property, the laws of this state and this country prohibit seizure or search of the said property without the consent of the owner. The Computing Center does not have the right to search a person’s computer, nor the data that resides on it. No privacy policy drafted by the Computing Center or anybody else will alter or enhance this right to an individual’s privacy. It is already guaranteed by the laws of this country.
Any information that people might have on their computers is private, and nobody can search it without probable cause. However, if the person makes part or all of that information public in some fashion, then any person or organization may legally examine it. For example, if a person uses a program such as Morpheus to share files with other people, then those files are open for all to see, including the Computing Center. Once again, no privacy statement from them will change that, as the person has demonstrated in those cases that they want that information to be made public.
The University network is owned by the Computing Center. If a person transmits or receives any information over it, the Computing Center has every legal right to monitor it. If the data turns out to be copyrighted information, that constitutes probable cause for a search of an individual’s computer.
With that in mind, the real issue is “why?” Why on earth would the Computing Center wish to target users who download copyrighted files over its network?
Surprisingly, the answer is not one of legality. The Computing Center is not a policing unit and never will be. Its mission is to ensure that the University network and university-owned equipment attached to it remains functional for its primary purpose: to serve the research and academic needs of the University. What your articles fail to mention is that up to three-fourths of the network capacity at the University was, at one point, being used to download copyrighted files. The remaining capacity was not enough to properly serve its stated mission, so the Computing Center was obligated to do something.
In your editorial on this matter, you mention that people “should be trusted” in the manner they use the University’s computing resources. Up until recently, the Computing Center turned a blind eye to applications such as Napster precisely because it is not a policing unit, and because those applications did not impede the network’s primary function. But when excessive use of Morpheus and other similar applications started to get in the way of legitimate academic activities, the users of the University network clearly violated that trust.
Clearly, the Computing Center’s action against those 250 or so people was not an invasion of privacy, but a restoration of our rights to legitimate academic use of the University’s resources.