First Edition of "Civil Liberty" Newsletter (1/2)
From rplotkin@acs-mail.bu.edu (Robert Plotkin)
Organization Boston University School of Law
Date 13 Jan 1996 21:01:41 GMT
Newsgroups alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.society.civil-liberty,comp.org.eff.talk
Message-ID <4d96jl$9h4@news.bu.edu>
First Edition of "Civil Liberty" Newsletter (1/2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From rplotkin@acs-mail.bu.edu (Robert Plotkin)
Organization Boston University School of Law
Date 13 Jan 1996 21:01:41 GMT
Newsgroups alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.society.civil-liberty,comp.org.eff.talk
Message-ID <4d96jl$9h4@news.bu.edu>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi. In November the Boston University School of Law Civil
Liberties Association published the first edition of its newsletter,
"Civil Liberty," despite the fact that the university's "Publications
Policy" prohibited any university funds from being used to publish the
newsletter.
What follows is a press release announcing the publication of the
newsletter and a text-only version of the newsletter itself. Sorry for
the long delay in putting this online, but I believe much of what is
contained in the newsletter is still timely. There are articles
dealing with events and policies at Boston University as well as
regional and national news.
Please email any comments, criticisms, or suggestions directly to
me.
Hope you enjoy it!
Robert Plotkin
rplotkin@acs.bu.edu
------------------------
Boston University School of Law
Civil Liberties Association
765 Commonwealth Ave.
Room 835
Boston, MA 02215
(617)353-8472
Glenn Wolther, President
Robert Plotkin, Vice-President
Chris Jones, Treasurer
Jennifer Horner, Treasurer
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 15, 1995
Boston University Prohibits Student Group from Printing Newsletter
The Boston University School of Law Civil Liberties Association (CLA)
has funded its first newsletter out of its members' pockets after being
informed by the BU Student Activities Office (SAO) that the BU
Publications Policy prohibits student organizations from publishing
"journals of opinion." The group had initially planned on paying for
the newsletter using funds which had been allocated to it by the law
school student government for that purpose. SAO will not release these
funds to the CLA, however, despite the fact that the funds come
directly from students in the form of the Student Activities Fee which
they pay each year.
Initial distribution of the newsletter is to coincide with a talk
sponsored by the CLA at BU by Nadine Strossen, the President of the
American Civil Liberties Union. Ironically, the subject of Ms.
Strossen's talk will be "Current Challenges to Civil Liberties in the
U.S." CLA plans to distribute the newsletter at the event and to
distribute a petition calling for the repeal of the Publications
Policy.
The newsletter, which has been printed in a smaller quantity and in a
format somewhat different than originally intended due to the
unexpected lack of funding, contains national and local news as well as
analysis of BU policies. The CLA decided to print the newsletter
despite these constraints because of the importance of the information
and analysis it contains to the BU community. The CLA also hopes that
publication of the newsletter will help to spark a productive debate
within the BU community about the effect of the Publications Policy on
free speech on campus.
CLA members are unsure whether they might still be subject to
disciplinary action under the University's fiscal policies for printing
a publication using their own money. They believe it is even possible
that the organization will be subject to discipline for printing and
distributing this press release.
------------------------
Civil Liberty
keeping freedom's flame alive
November 15, 1995 - Volume 1, Number 1
published by the BU School of Law Civil Liberties Association
A Letter From the President
Welcome to our first issue! The Civil Liberties Association is
dedicated to raising consciousness about freedom of speech, religion,
and association; privacy, due process, equality, the death penalty, and
other civil liberties concerns. The Association also acts as a watchdog
organization for the Boston University community by opposing and working
to change policies and practices that infringe upon Civil Liberties. We
are affiliated with the American Civil Liberties Union, and its
Massachusetts affiliate.
This semester, on campus, we are currently examining BU's
telecommunications privacy policy (or lack of it) and we sponsored a
panel discussion on challenges to free speech on the internet. This week
we will host ACLU national President Nadine Strossen (Nov. 15, 4pm, Law
Auditorium) in a discussion on Current Challenges to Civil Liberties.
Off campus we are working with the Bill of Rights Education Project,
sending law students in to Massachusetts schools to discuss the Bill of
Rights and its relationship to students' rights.
Next semester more activities are planned both on and off
campus. You are encouraged to participate! We are currently working on
establishing an undergraduate chapter; please contact us if you are an
interested undergraduate. Remember, "Eternal vigilance is the price of
Liberty!"
Glenn Wolther, BUSL CLA President
-----
The Boston University School of Law
Civil Liberties Association
765 Commonwealth Ave., Room 835
Boston, MA 02215
(617)353-8472
President: Glenn Wolther
Vice-President: Robert Plotkin
Treasurer: Chris Jones
Secretary: Jennifer Horner
People responsible for this issue:
Chris Jones Elizabeth O'Brien
Robert Plotkin Jason Vicente
Peter Vickery Glenn Wolther
The views expressed in this newsletter are the views of the individual
authors and do not represent the views of Boston University. This
newsletter was produced without University funding.
-----
Please take my money and some liberties, too
by Peter Vickery
When a former colleague of mine left his native Belfast for the
first time to attend university in England, one of his first stops was a
department store. As soon as he walked into the store, he put his hands
in the air and stood with his legs apart ready to be patted down. It
was a moment or two before he realized there were no soldiers waiting to
search him for explosives. What bothered him more than the momentary
embarrassment was the fact that after years of being subject to random
searches by people in uniform he had become inured to it. He was
shocked to find that during his childhood in the north of Ireland,
legally a province of the United Kingdom, a liberal parliamentary
democracy, he had grown accustomed to the routine infringement of his
liberty.
On hearing that story, the predictable response of a government
official would be that while the loss of liberty suffered by law-abiding
citizens is very regrettable, in the `war against terrorism' it is
simply the price we have to pay.
Entering the Mugar Memorial Library, visitors may notice a sign
informing them that their bags may be inspected upon leaving. On
exiting the library, most people obediently hold open their bags as they
pass the desk while the puce-jacketed guards give a cursory glance.
Occasionally someone will attempt to leave without displaying the
contents of her/his bag and will be asked to open it for inspection.
To suggest that this procedure compares with the abuse of human
rights that goes on in the north of Ireland would be ridiculous, but by
submitting to the daily official examination of their private property,
BU students become conditioned to the erosion of their freedom. That
people leave university accustomed to bag searches is cause for concern.
Mr. Robert Hudson, Director of the Mugar Memorial Library
explains the reasons for the searches:
"Each year thousands of dollars worth of library material is
stolen, damaged, or mutilated, a cost which the library strives to
minimize on behalf of the tuition-paying students at Boston University.
The bag inspection at the exit of the library is designed to discourage
such activity, and to identify the perpetrators if possible.
"I receive frequent confirmation that the inspections are
necessary, and effective, through regular reports on the number of
people who attempt to leave the building with materials concealed, with
the library property identifications tampered or altered, or with loose
pages torn from library materials, and who are stopped by the
inspection.
"Proper notice of the inspection is posted in the Mugar Memorial
Library. Any person not wishing to submit personal property to the
inspection is free not to bring it into the library."
Those are sound reasons for bag inspections. They would be
equally sound reasons for locker searches, patting down library users at
the exit and on the spot searches of any persons within or near the
library. Saving money may not have the urgency of saving lives from a
bomb, but it is clearly a defensible rationalization for removing a
civil liberty. There is invariably a `Good Reason' for taking away
liberties, and that's why the framers of the Constitution produced a
Bill of Rights.
The presumption of innocence can never rate very highly in
dollar terms, nor can the right to privacy. If the alternative to bag
searches is to have the shelves ruthlessly looted by the kleptomanic
hordes who clearly dominate BU and have tuition fees rocket
concomitantly, then bag searches it must be. Does it really matter that
BU graduates will become nationally renowned not for their
unquestionable academic prowess, but for their passive compliance and
deference to people wearing puce?
Next time you enter and exit a department store, remember to
consider why you aren't searched. Perhaps department stores don't think
they can get away with it. Perhaps they're pining for the day when
their customers will exclusively comprise well-trained Mugar Library
users; people who'll pay for the privilege of being searched.
BU Dorm Residents Assert Their Free Speech Rights
by Glenn Wolther
Three undergraduate BU students who claimed in a letter to the
BU Daily Free Press that a dormitory Senior Resident Assistant violated
their free expression rights when he ordered signs they posted in
windows be taken down, were vindicated by an apology letter issued by
the Sr. RA's superior.
James Vannah, Jason Radice, and Justin Anderson and 9 other
residents of 16th floor of Warren Towers agreed to post letters in their
dorm room windows. Each room window contained one letter, stating "Free
OJ" and later "Fry OJ" at the time of the verdict in that case. The
three students indicated that they were told that a Senior RA.
instructed residents to remove the postings or be issued violations. The
students complied with the RA's order, but after consulting with each
other on their options, they wrote a letter to the editor that appeared
in the Oct. 5th Daily Free Press.
The letter to the editor complained that the removal of the sign
was, "an attempt to prevent [their] freedom of expression." The students
believed the reason for the removal of the sign was due to the content
of its message since numerous other signs were allowed to appear in dorm
room windows.
The day the letter appeared the three students received phone
calls requesting an appointment to meet with superiors to the RA who
ordered the sign removed. As a result of that meeting the students each
received an apology letter stating "the staff member acted
inappropriately in requiring [them] and other residents of [their] floor
to remove a large sign from room windows. [The] sign was not a violation
of the university policy or residence hall polices, and as [they]
pointed out had every right to be posted."
According to Kenneth Elmore, Associate Director of Residence
Life, BU policy allows banners in windows of dorm rooms and does not
make content based restrictions. Mr. Elmore conceded that the students
perceived the RA to be acting with an implied "official capacity" when
he ordered the sign taken down. Mr. Elmore indicated this was an error
and that the students should not have been ordered to take the signs
down. At most, BU policy allows the RA to talk to the students about
content which may be offensive to some, and point out sensitivities, but
it does not allow the RA to enforce that suggestion upon unwilling
students.
The apology letter, as well as the current policy may well be
the result of a 1986 law suit, Abramowitz v The Trustees of Boston
University. In that case four BU students were ordered to take down
banners, some outside and some inside their windows. The main banner in
question belonged to Yosef Abramowitz, advocating that BU divest from
corporations in apartheid South Africa. It read, simply, "DIVEST".
After refusing to take down the sign, it was removed by university
employees who entered his room. He was subsequently expelled from the
residence system and was threatened with other sanctions which, but for
a court injunction, could have resulted in expulsion from the
University.
The Abramowitz court found that although BU is a private
University, it is nonetheless obligated to respect some constitutional
rights of students. This was because the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act
has no "state action" requirement. In general, the U.S. Supreme Court
has found that in order to be protected by the constitution a
deprivation of liberty must come at the hands of the government, rather
than a private institution. This is known as the "state action"
requirement. However, the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act protects
individuals from deprivation of rights secured under the federal and
state constitution through "threats, intimidation or coercion." "Free
speech does not stop, because we are in a private university. This is
our home, [and] we should have the right to express ourselves as we see
fit." said James Vannah. Mr. Elmore indicated a similar sentiment.
When asked if the current BU policy was a result of the
Abramowitz case, Mr. Elmore indicated that it may have been one
component in a process which the University realized that there were
some inconsistencies over the years. The students here, as well those
in the Abramowitz case, complained that the university was selectively
enforcing its rules. In 1986, for example, at the time of the Abramowitz
case, exemptions from the policy were made for student government
elections and support of athletic teams. Other banners were hung without
exemptions, for example, red cross blood drive banners, yet the four
students in the Abramowitz in the case were the only ones disciplined
that year for violations of the policy. Numerous other examples existed
as well.
In the present case, all three students expressed surprise at
the positive response of the RA's, and indicated that as a result they
would be more likely to take a stand against other violations of their
rights in the future. They were not aware of the Abramowitz case when
they stepped forward; however they appear to have benefited from it. In
this way, they have demonstrated once again that it is only by stepping
forward and confronting the university's authority that students can
secure their own rights and those of future generations of students.
-----
Who's Reading Your Email?
by Robert Plotkin
Do you have an internet account at BU? If so, then when you
first registered for your account you agreed to abide by BU's Computing
Ethics Policy and Conditions of Use, which allow BU to inspect, copy,
delete, or modify any information stored or transmitted on a BU
"computing resource." This includes any email you send, receive, or
store on your account. It also includes any other data you store on
your account, for example, term papers, lab results, poetry, or your
shopping list.
The stated purpose of these policies is to "protect the
integrity of the University's computing facilities and the users thereof
against unauthorized or improper use of those facilities." The policies
include provisions prohibiting users from using BU computing resources
for "unauthorized" uses and from using such resources irresponsibly.
While BU certainly has cause to be concerned about people using its
computing facilities to commit crimes, harass users, propagate viruses,
or infringe upon copyrights, denying any privacy to users of BU
computing resources is not a necessary or even rational way of
addressing these concerns. In addition, through its vagueness it
affirmatively impedes attainment of what should be the goals of BU's
computer system: the advancement of education, research, communication,
and personal productivity.
The policy is a model of vague, overbroad delegation of
authority. Although "BU" reserves the right to read your email, the
policy does not state which specific individuals or departments at BU
have this right. Can a part-time student worker at the Academic
Computing cluster access your email, or is that authority exclusively
reserved to the Dean of Students? The policy doesn't say. Must
inspection of your personal files be predicated upon a formal complaint
against you alleging misuse of computing resources, or may it be
conducted at the whim of an administrator? Again, there is no hint of
any answer to this question in the policy. And although the policy
would subject users to punishment for "unauthorized" use of computing
resources, nowhere within the policy is there any definition of what
constitutes "authorized" use. These are but a few examples of the kind
of vagueness which makes it impossible for any user to attempt to follow
the dictates of the policy in good faith.
It is not yet possible to say exactly how BU interprets or
enforces the policies. Despite requests dating back to November of last
year, Boston University has yet to provide us with clarification of the
policies' provisions. However, we are planning to meet with a
representative of BU in the near future. Regardless of BU's particular
interpretation of the policy's provisions or its method of enforcement,
the mere existence of the policy creates problems for privacy and free
speech.
The policy's explicit denial to users of any privacy, in
combination with the vagueness of the policy's substantive and
procedural provisions, surely chills many, if not most, productive uses
of BU's computing resources. People who are aware of the policy will
not use their computing resources for email and other forms of
communication because they know that such communications can be accessed
by BU. How likely is a research scientist working on developing a new
product to discuss creative new hypotheses via email if she cannot be
sure that her ideas will not be copied and distributed to competitors?
How comfortable will a clinical law professor feel discussing
confidential aspects of a case if such communications can be read by
anyone? Even casual communication between friends is chilled by the
possibility that such communications will be overseen by unknown eyes.
In addition, the policy also harms those users who use BU's
computing resources but are not aware of the existence of the policy.
Such users are likely to assume that their data and communications are
at least as secure from inspection as conversations on campus telephones
or letters sent through campus mail. The fact that all users initially
agree to accept the conditions imposed by the Computing Ethics Policy is
of little significance, because most users do not take the time to
inform themselves of the details of the policy. Rather, they spend
their time writing papers, sending email, reading netnews, running
experiments, etc., without being confronted with any evidence or
information that would lead them to believe that the data stored on
their accounts is open to inspection, copying, etc., by BU. The policy
doesn't even contain a provision requiring that users be notified
whenever their data is inspected, copied, or modified. Under these
circumstances, a serious invasion of privacy occurs whenever an
unknowing user's data is inspected under the authority of the policy.
The policy defeats its own stated purpose of "protect[ing] the
integrity of [BU's] computing facilities" if "integrity" means
consistency of transmissions and stored information over time. A system
in which data stored on personal accounts can be copied, modified, etc.
by third parties will maintain integrity or the trust of its user base
for long.
One of the policy's stated purposes is to protect "the users [of
BU computing resources] against unauthorized or improper use of those
[resources]." However, the actual provisions of the policy undermine
the purposes behind limiting uses to those which are "authorized".
Presumably the reason for granting data access only to those who are
"authorized" is to limit the number of individuals who have access and,
in turn, to maintain the privacy of individual users and the integrity
of data stored on their accounts. As the circle containing those who
are "authorized" increases, privacy and integrity decrease. BU's
policy, which fails to define "authorized" use and which presumably
considers any system manager to be "authorized" to access user data,
therefore undermines the very reasons for limiting use to that which is
"authorized."
How does BU's policy compare with policies at other schools?
BU's policy won't win any awards for being the most progressive policy
in academia. Many schools explicitly affirm their students' right to
privacy. Swinburne University of Technology's policy states: "[p]rivate
communications across the University's data networks will have the same
protection as private communications via the telephone." The policy
goes on to say that "[n]o University employee will be permitted to
intercept, read, copy or modify private electronic data, without the
written consent of the Vice Chancellor or the consent of the addressee."
Policies of this nature are common. Columbia University's
policy treats electronic mail as private, not permitting them to be read
by system administrators unless "absolutely necessary." UCLA's policy
allows administrators to access user files only under the "very unusual
circumstances when system response, integrity or security is threatened
. . . ."
Northwestern University and the University of Pennsylvania also
assert their students' right to privacy in electronic communications as
well as their right to free speech. Each states they it will not alter
or delete the views expressed and posted by their students as long as
the views are not represented as views of the university.
There are too many telecommunications policies to list in this
article. However, telecommunications policies for many colleges and
universities are available via the Internet. I encourage you to examine
the policies of other institutions, and I believe that if you do so you
will find Boston University's policy to be one of the more intrusive in
higher education. Despite any flaws in the policies quoted above, and
despite the fact that well-drafted policies may still be poorly
implemented, policies such as those above which at least make an attempt
to explicitly affirm the privacy and free speech rights of users are a
step in the right direction.
BU should follow the lead of other university's and formulate a
computer use policy that promotes the system's educational purposes,
which must include protecting privacy and promoting the free exchange of
ideas. To accomplish this BU will need to closely examine the goals of
its computer system, the needs of its users, and the technological
constraints placed upon the system. A policy which does not protect the
privacy and speech rights of its users will, in addition to violating
long-accepted principles of academic freedom, inhibit a wide range of
productive uses of BU's computer system. This would constitute an
unfortunate and completely unnecessary loss to the entire BU community.
Jason Vicente contributed to this article.
-----