USM administrators could be running spyware on employees' computers, even tapping phone lines.

But if they did that, wouldn't they be deluged in "disloyal" material?

No one I know is corresponding through campus email or on campus telephones anymore about anything that isn't strictly "bidness."

I know some very established, well-respected profs who wait until they are home on their personal phones and PCs to talk and email.  Each believes that campus phones and computers are being monitored--especially those of the "usual suspects:" the people who are and have been the most outspoken against the administration.

My advice is to tread lightly on campus equipment...

An anecdote: a week ago, one of these professors threatened to call iT to come remove his phone and computer, since he might be fired for "misusing university equipment" should he receive a call from his wife or an email from his grandchildren.

 

You know, whether or not it is going on (and I am one of those who leans toward believing it is going on), it says a helluva lot about the stifling atmosphere on campus.  Paranoid is right, but for good reason.

As Woody Allen said, "Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me."

quote:

---

Originally posted by:
"
You know, whether or not it is going on (and I am one of those who leans toward believing it is going on), it says a helluva lot about the stifling atmosphere on campus.  Paranoid is right, but for good reason.
As Woody Allen said, "Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.""

---

The assumption among the faculty is they are being monitored. Increasingly, people are using home computers and cell phones for private communications. The atmosphere is toxic. It's hard to believe it's a university in 2004 rather than 1984. Dr. Hartwig was right on about the KGB.

Ultimately, are you implicated or incompetent?   From the Joan Exline thread - remember, they burn you after you do their dirty work!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Paranoid
"There's lots of talk and rumors spinning around about how deep the I-tech groupies are in electronic monitoring and recording for the dome.  Are the concerns that phone logs, internet sites visited, and e-mail correspondence is being watched or is it that phone lines are actually being tapped.  I understand that is only the latter that is illegal.  "

---

That is total bull.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: GIGO
"That is total bull. "

---

On what do you base YOUR opinion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: foot soldier
"Even if there isn't any surveillence, the fact that everyone is worried about it (and has been since last year), says a great deal about the atmosphere under the Thames administration. It doesn't have to be literally true to be significant."

---

I won't argue with that statement.

Hopefully, the rumors about surveilance don't turn out to be true. But I can totally understand the worries, more so since the suspensions. After all, aren't Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer charged with something like misusing USM property in the form of phones/computers in the course of the Dvorak investigation? Regardless of whether the charges themselves have merit, the administration's act of charging them with something like that implies that somehow somebody knew what was being said on USM phones and written USM computers. I think that this idea was already expressed in a speech at the faculty convocation, but I can't quite remember by whom. I'm not trying to sound like a conspiracy hound or anything, but I think that the many faculty members and staff persons who are being careful with what they say or send on campus lines are acting reasonably based on the information available to them. Prudence can't hurt anything in this situation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Hellgirl
"Hopefully, the rumors about surveilance don't turn out to be true. But I can totally understand the worries, more so since the suspensions. After all, aren't Frank Glamser and Gary Stringer charged with something like misusing USM property in the form of phones/computers in the course of the Dvorak investigation? Regardless of whether the charges themselves have merit, the administration's act of charging them with something like that implies that somehow somebody knew what was being said on USM phones and written USM computers. I think that this idea was already expressed in a speech at the faculty convocation, but I can't quite remember by whom. I'm not trying to sound like a conspiracy hound or anything, but I think that the many faculty members and staff persons who are being careful with what they say or send on campus lines are acting reasonably based on the information available to them. Prudence can't hurt anything in this situation."

---

Let's not forget that, prior to the Shelby charging the professors with misusing computers and phones, he and Hanbury conducted a six-week investigation.  Now, how would you investigate for six weeks misuse of phones and PCs unless you were monitoring them?

Yes, he sent a message to everyone on campus.  Watch what you say and where you say it.

By the way, there was a Printz article a couple of weeks ago on this very topic.  The iTech guy who was interviewed said that USM did indeed have the capability to monitor computers (we already knew that) but that they didn't have time to monitor the 3,000 computers on campus. 

I don't think anyone believes they are monitoring EVERY computer on campus--just probably those in the offices of the thorns in Shelby's side.

I heard about faculty suspicions of monitering of e-mails a while before the firings.  Thare has been talk of it for a while, I think.

Here's what itech say about the topic:

Some surfers may have questions about privacy while accessing these sites on campus, but, Isaac Johnston, director of the iTech infrastructure unit, said currently USM does not have the capacity to monitor the web surfing patterns of users on the over 3,000 campus-wide computers.

"The volume of data that would be generated by this sort of monitoring would quickly exceed our storage capacity and identifying the sites that a single person visited in this volume of data would be difficult at best," said Johnston.

Johnston said every Web server visited, including hits from USM campus computers, logs certain information about the visit, including the computer's network address, the Web client and accessed pages.

"In general, this information is used to track server load and plan for future growth, but in isolated cases, the data collected can be of a much more invasive nature," said Johnston.

In the case of the USM Web server, the information collected is not sufficient to identify the individual that visited the Web site, he said. "But it is dangerous to assume that you are completely anonymous while browsing the Web."
http://www.usm.edu/printz/archives/04082004/internet.html

Woohoo! Shelby is the source of all the viruses at the university. Direct cause and effect relationship established, shelby becomes president and USM internet becomes modern enough to be recognized by viruses. Nail him to the cross for modernizing us, they did it to fleming for trying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: someone
"Woohoo! Shelby is the source of all the viruses at the university. Direct cause and effect relationship established, shelby becomes president and USM internet becomes modern enough to be recognized by viruses. Nail him to the cross for modernizing us, they did it to fleming for trying."

---

When Dr. Thames became President, one of the very first things he did was begin to control lines of communication -- phones, computers, etc.  Henc, for example, the policy that one's computer could be seized.  It was starting when I was there.  A good virus scare is a good excuse to keep the computer system at least partially unuseable, and I will right now say yes, that does sound pretty paranoid.  Doesn't the Glamser-Stringer experience PROVE that your lines of communication are compromised?  And, what happens to G & S's computers?  What happens to the work, particularly work done in collaboration with off-campus researchers, which was in progress? 

A word to the wise -- before I left, I was amazed to see how much personal stuff had accumulated on my university computer.  I started emailing it home, and deleting it from the work site. 

Here's a thought to those who object to me using the computer and phone at work for personal business: is it more efficient to make a 2-minute call, or to take half the day off tp handle the same situation?  Frankly, I considered the computer a perk in lieu of a real salary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: someone
"Woohoo! Shelby is the source of all the viruses at the university. Direct cause and effect relationship established, shelby becomes president and USM internet becomes modern enough to be recognized by viruses. Nail him to the cross for modernizing us, they did it to fleming for trying."

---

Hahahaha!  You are saying that the only reason the computer system has been attacked by viruses is because it was updated?  I have a 1996 model Gateway running Windows 95 on dial-up that was "attacked" a couple of years ago.  I don't think modernization has anything to do with a computer's susceptiblity to viruses or worms. 

As for nailing Thames to a cross, sorry, but I don't see him as any kind of tragic Christ figure.  He brought on himself his own demise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: someone
"ah the voice of experience - in the old days this happened. Sorry, but if you paid attention to the recent worms they are denial of service ones that go after the switches not like the ones that one gets from not updating ones software protection software."

---

And any server, "modernized" or not, can be susceptible to DOS attacks.

And let me add that DOS attacks are targeted.  Usually the server that is attacked is attacked for a reason, for "offending" someone.  I wonder if Shelby's role in the current crisis subjected USM's servers to this DOS attack.  My understanding is that this attack came from out of state.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by:
Johnston said every Web server visited, including hits from USM campus computers, logs certain information about the visit, including the computer's network address, the Web client and accessed pages. "In general, this information is used to track server load and plan for future growth, but in isolated cases, the data collected can be of a much more invasive nature," said Johnston. In the case of the USM Web server, the information collected is not sufficient to identify the individual that visited the Web site, he said. "But it is dangerous to assume that you are completely anonymous while browsing the Web." http://www.usm.edu/printz/archives/04082004/internet.html"

---

Just wanted to establish that this is nothing special. Any website that you visit will likely log information about you, and any Internet service provider that you sign up with will log information about your web activity. Since USM is essentially the web service provider for all of campus, they are collecting (logging) activity too.

Not to say that this cannot be turned toward evil ends - because it can. However, the fact that USM employs logging of web site activity is really nothing unusual at all. Some peopel may be surprised, if not horrified, to know what other providers and web sites might be able to discern about their browsing habits.

[Activeboard ate my homework]

... or IP spoofing. Using this wonderful technology, you can make it appear that your regular visits to Fire Shelby, rotten.com, or even kiddie p0rn sites originated in the Dome

And the supremely paranoid may want to obtain some of these tools. Be sure to run them before going to any "personnel review conferences" in the Dome.

Hie It, Wipe It, Shred It

Remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that somebody isn't out to get you!