Did Thames change the email policy himself?

Date: May 17, 2004

Did Thames change the email policy himself?

Date: May 17, 2004

Sorry about the typos in the previous message. Practice does not make perfect, when typing into a cgi...

Date: May 17, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Sorry about the typos in the previous message. Practice does not make perfect, when typing into a cgi..."

According to the way he phrased this, it was a suggestion he was making for the PUC's response.

It was not stated as policy yet -- he asked if the PUC agreed should it become policy right away or were there reasons to wait.

Since there was agreement that this seemed like a good idea but there was disagreement that it was sufficient, he also asked if it should be adopted on an interim basis while the policy as a whole was being examined.

At least on the surface it did not seem like a done deal and he did not seem to particuarly pushing the policy as a must do now . . . although it didn't seem completely rational not to agree that on an interim basis there probably isn't a good reason to go ahead.

Still, I now realize that it possible that the PUC may have inadvertantly allowed itself to in effect, "vote" on a policy through it's assent. I believe there was an assertion that the final policy should still go through the representative bodies for vetting, I can't remember how specific that point was made.

Does that help?

I'm tired -- need to go home and get a bourbon. I'll check back in later tonight.

Date: May 17, 2004

Am I the only one who sees the e-mail "concession" as a remark to the effect, "Maybe I'll stop breaking into your house and reading your mail. Or at least I'll wait until my lawyer says it's OK."

I mean by this that he's giving us back something he had no right to in the first place, thus it is not a concession at all.

Date: May 18, 2004

Thames has stated he is willing to go to the AG for approval to read our email, scan our hard drives, and listen in on our phone calls. Who knows where this came from? The Faculty Senate called for this (and more) as did Academic Council. David Johnson, on another thread, seems to allude to something else that he knows that is causing the puc to press for change in the policy. While it may be that what Thames has already done is "legal" it is certainly slimy.

Date: May 18, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: The Koplat Agency
"Am I the only one who sees the e-mail "concession" as a remark to the effect, "Maybe I'll stop breaking into your house and reading your mail. Or at least I'll wait until my lawyer says it's OK." I mean by this that he's giving us back something he had no right to in the first place, thus it is not a concession at all."

Unfortunately, he did have the legal right to read email. I think it is a step in the right direction to get the attorney general or other outside agencies approval before reading emails in the future.

Date: May 18, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: info
"Unfortunately, he did have the legal right to read email.

Why did he have the right? Because some obscure "university e-mail policy" gave it to him? Does anyone really read all of those policies? Do the people who write them have any reasonable expectation that users are aware of the policy? On the other hand, do users have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they use any communication system: mail, e-mail, phone? What, if anything, distinguishes e-mail from other forms of communication? Which is more compelling, the university's need to ferret out the occasional malcontent subversive or the privacy rights of the majority of faculty, students and third party correspondents?

Maybe he had the right to snoop, maybe not. Law tends not to be as clear cut as the rules of Scrabble. Often it is a competition between opposing principles that is not resolved until the lawsuit is over.

Date: May 18, 2004

As far as I know, Thames' surveillance of employees' email and hard drives is legal. That's because current law treats computers in the workplace as items of company equipment, like cars or meat slicers or pencil sharpeners.

Snooping on students' email is a gray area; listening to employees' phone conversations without warning probably is illegal.

But I don't think that pressure from the AG's office to stop the email snooping--if such pressure has been applied to Thames--is motivated primarily by legal concerns.

It's motivated by political concerns. It looks bad for the top administrator of a state agency to order the kind of surveillance that Thames ordered on Stringer and Glamser, and then boast about in public.

I raised this issue (has the Attorney General leaned on Shelby Thames to accept restrictions on email snooping?) for three reasons:

(1) Does anyone think that Thames decided on his own to accept the restrictions? Thames is notorious for not listening to suggestions from faculty, staff, or students. So why his sudden openness to "input" from his PUC, on this particular issue? And if Thames didn't decide on his own, either the Board decided for him (unlikely, given that a majority still supports him) or AG Hood decided for him. And don't you think that by firing Jack Hanbury, Hood sent Thames an extremely clear signal?

(2) If Thames has been leaned on, on this particular issue, he will have to make concessions. There's an opportunity to write a model workplace communication policy, which will treat email snooping the same way that wiretapping and opening snail-mail are treated. Were USM to enact such a policy, it would be an example to emulate and it would bring good publicity to the institution. If the policy were written by Faculty Senators, so much the better... though that is not strictly necessary. And if Thames has not been leaned on by the AG, or leaned on hard enough, he will reject the model policy--and reap the bad publicity that will flow from rejecting it.

(3) If Thames has been leaned on, on this particular issue, he will show little or no willingness to make concessions on any other issue of present concern. Bring up any other issue on peanut gallery's list, or Noel Polk's list, at a PUC meeting and, if I am correct, Thames will revert to reacting like his usual self. (I predict that demanding a straight answer about Angie Dvorak, Pileum, and surveillance on Gary Stringer before January 16, 2004 will elicit a typical Thames reaction.) And if he blows up, during one of these pacification, er, improved communication meetings, he will have shot off more toes.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 18, 2004

Hey! Thames has stopped beating his wife! Wait--I mean, he has agreed to stop beating his wife, or, at least, to ask the AG before he beats his wife again!

A bold victory for our side!

Is it too much to ask that we not be fools?

Date: May 18, 2004

Rowdy,

I'm not sure I follow you. But here are some ways we can distinguish strategic thinking from FUD.

1. Suppose the AG isn't leaning on Shelby Thames, and Thames is just pretending to make concessions about email snooping. In that case, his faking can be exposed very 2. quickly.

2. Most of us on this board would like to see Thames removed from office at the next IHL Board meeting. But that seems very unlikely. Suppose the Board leaves him in, even extends his contract. Does he get a free pass for the rest of his term in office? Or does every unresolved issue continue to plague him?

3. Why do you think Jack Hanbury was fired? Do you think Hood fired him in order to keep Shelby in power, and to make it easier for Shelby to project his power? Or did Shelby fire him, and make it look as though Hood did it?

4. More generally, does a guy like Thames, who appears to believe he can get away with anything, always make smart decisions?

5. Or is it irrelevant whether he makes smart decisisons, because Thames and his allies are omnipotent?

Robert Campbell

Date: May 18, 2004

Once again, Dr. Campbell, astute relevant questions. Not arbitrary or capricious in any sense, by golly, I think you've GOT IT.