🚀 go-pugleaf

Joe (won@oldyeller.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: In article <4l111p$neg@peabody.colorado.edu>,
: Robert Tarrall <tarrall@plutus.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
: >
: >The usage policy as far as I can tell really isn't anything new, nor is
: >it as restrictive in practise as you suggest.
: 
: I think the wording and semantics of the whole article leave
: a lot of room for difference of interpretation.  I agree it's
: not as restrictive as I may have made it sound,  but it could
: be easily interpreted that way.
: [...]
: 	You also have to keep in mind that this is
: not commonplace among Universities.  We're not
: "joining the bandwagon".  In comparison to most
: major Universities,  I think this Policy *is* rather restrictive.

I don't know what their current policy is, but for many years Rice University
did not allow any students to send email off-campus as recently as 1990.
CU has given accounts to all students, regardless of major, for quite a
while now... something that many universities still don't do.  If we're
not a leader in free access to the Internet, we're by no means a terrible
place to be.  If you don't believe me, do a little research.  The
rec.humor.funny newsgroup was banned at Stanford.  The University of
Nebraska at Lincoln banned the entire alt.* hierarchy.  If you really
think our policy is unusual check the Web for other policies.  A good
starting point is
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/tdr-security/policy.html.

I think it's commendable that CU actually has a written policy.  I suspect
that if you contact the administration at most major colleges and universities
you would find that they reserve  the right to inspect your files when they
suspect you of abusing the resources... regardless of whether or not they've
provided a written policy to this effect.  The same situation applies to
using the systems for personal commercial purposes; see below.

The policy as written does not appear to me to give CU any additional rights
which it did not already have under the ECPA.  Have a look at the ECPA (can
be found on the net at http://www.tscm.com/ecpa.htm) and let us know if you
feel otherwise.

: >Since the University system is partially funded by
: >taxpayer dollars it would be improper for you as a CU affiliate to use your
: >account as a discount source of advertising.
: 
: It is improper according to the Policy.  It's quite natural
: and commonplace for the Internet.

Maybe I should rephrase that.  It would be ILLEGAL for you to use your CU
account as a discount source of advertising.  This has nothing to do with the
legality of advertising on the internet; the problem is that if CU allows you
to use your account for such non-University activities they will be competing
with local providers of similar services.  As a state institution CU is not
allowed to compete in this way; for reference see what happened to Rec Center
membership availability when a local business (I think it was the Pulse) got
upset with CU for offering Rec Center memberships to the general public.  Now,
unless you're a CU affiliate, you can only get an ice rink membership at the
rec center.

: I think UMS needs to stay away from legal wording and
: create a *CLEAR* and *SIMPLE* Policy.  The problem is not
: that we have a Policy...the problem is that we have a Policy
: which, in my opinion of course, is nothing but a lot of
: Legal babble and ultimately leaves too much room for someone
: to misinterpret or abuse it.

Two comments - first, it's not really possible to write something in
"plain english" that can't be misinterpreted.  To paraphrase Tom Stoppard,
English makes up for in obscurity what it lacks in style.  You can either
have definitive legalese (see the EPCA), plain english subject to
misinterpretation (see the addenda to the Policy) or something in between
(see the Policy itself).

Second, what you seem to consider "abuse" of the policy would be considered
legal under the ECPA as far as I can tell.  So again, if anything, the
policy might be construed to further limit the University's access to
your email but it certainly does not appear to grant them greater access
than they've already been granted by Congress.

			-Robert.-

(regarding vague wording, here's a choice bit I found in another University's
policy on the use of their systems: "Adhere to Bitnet and Internet rules which
discourages chain letters, junk mail, or unsolicited casual contacts."
Now THAT'S vague!)