SFT's letter

Date: May 24, 2004

SFT's letter

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Anne Wallace
"... Thames's USMMail letter, which I assume was distributed elsewhere, of course changes nothing substantial..."

I fear we will lose sight or this in the midst of the Krumb Kraziness. So bump. But as long as I'm here....

From Boss Hog:

computers ... can be monitored at any time.... Monitoring was very focused and very specific.

Point 1: Before the hearing, it was widely reported that phones were included in the misused "university equipment." Not that I'd believe him at this point, but shouldn't he be asked directly about phone tapping as well?

Point 2: Amongst the e-mails he presented at the hearing, wasn't at least one from a student to Myron Henry? Weren't there others not involving F&G? Shouldn't he be asked for the definition of "very focused and very specific"?

Point 3: PUC: Read that letter and notice how many times he implies or outright states that you have endorsed all of his actions. As mentioned several times on this board, you are being used.

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Tinctoris
" Point 3: PUC: Read that letter and notice how many times he implies or outright states that you have endorsed all of his actions. As mentioned several times on this board, you are being used."

Has anyone heard anything lately from any member of the PUC? When does the organization next meet, and what will be on its agenda? Do the PUCers feel any obligation to communicate with the rest of the university community or seek their input? I sincerely hope that the PUC will put itself out of business -- by turning itself over to elected representatives of elected university groups -- at the very next meeting. DJ, are you out there? At one time you seemed to be the only member of the PUC who was making a real effort to reach out to others. Please don't stop now!

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Tinctoris
"

I fear we will lose sight or this in the midst of the Krumb Kraziness. So bump. But as long as I'm here....

From Boss Hog:

computers ... can be monitored at any time.... Monitoring was very focused and very specific.

Point 1: Before the hearing, it was widely reported that phones were included in the misused "university equipment." Not that I'd believe him at this point, but shouldn't he be asked directly about phone tapping as well?

Point 2: Amongst the e-mails he presented at the hearing, wasn't at least one from a student to Myron Henry? Weren't there others not involving F&G? Shouldn't he be asked for the definition of "very focused and very specific"?

Point 3: PUC: Read that letter and notice how many times he implies or outright states that you have endorsed all of his actions. As mentioned several times on this board, you are being used."

You are right. There was an email in there that had nothing to do with the case at all. All evidence from the hearings is public record now so it shouldn't be hard to prove Thames is lying when he says he only monitored emails having to do with the case. This should be brought up by the PUCers at least.

Date: May 24, 2004

If I recall from the hearing, emails were mentioned that were sent before the AAUP investigation began. How did they get those? If they were monitored back then, someone has been snooping for an awfully long time. Anyone else remember if this is true?

Also, as someone else said, does focused monitoring include the president of the faculty senate and the editor of the student newspaper?

If I were still there, I would NEVER use university email or phones.

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Former faculty
"If I recall from the hearing, emails were mentioned that were sent before the AAUP investigation began. How did they get those? If they were monitored back then, someone has been snooping for an awfully long time....
"

Former Professor,
I would think they got those e-mails off of the hard drive of the computer(s). I always wondered why the profs had to be terminated and not allowed to teach until after their hearing. Apparently termination was the only way to get to their computers and search for damaging e-mails.

Date: May 24, 2004

The evidence that USM submitted against Glamser and Stringer, which include photocopies of many emails, are part of the public record. I have a copy (actually several). I am happy to take suggestions as to where to put them so anyone local can view the materials.

Amy Young
ayoung321@comcast.net

Date: May 24, 2004

There was a rumor going around the LAB that someone in the English deparment realized what was going on and got Stringer's laptop computer out that morning. It had all his research on it and this person wanted to help protect it. I don't know if this is true, but the story is that the administration couldn't have gotten anything off of Stringer's machine. Again, it was just a rumor and I never heard any more about it. But if it is true, there had to be some breaking and entering or as was said earlier, some monitoring going on for a long time.

Date: May 24, 2004

With regard to reading faculty email at least, the problem was, is, and still will be the university server. Where the message came from, and when it arrived are far less important to the law, as I understand it. In other words, if a message from anywhere on earth, by any faculty member (and indeed any one on earth) ends up, for whatever reason, on the university server, then, according to the law as I understand it, the university can read that message. It is their server and they can do what they please with what they find on it. Period.

Any email, from anywhere that ends up on the USM server, therefore, is no better than an open-ended postcard.

Please don't retaliate or flame me on this: I've been doing extensive research on the matter.

I will say that the waters do get very muddy for lots of reasons in certain areas of email and servers. I just won't say on an open forum like this where those muddy waters are but what I can say is quite simple:

Currently, the university server is subject to "search and seizure" at any time and, seemingly, for any reason. Just because the President is saying he's not monitoring now doesnt mean he can't monitor later; and it doesnt mean he can't go back in time and dig up anything he wants if it is still on the server. The USM server is and forever will be tainted.

In short, if I am understanding correctly, the administration can "raid" their server at any time and take from it what they so choose no matter what the date may be of the message they choose to read. The server is what is tainted. Therefore, all students, and faculty, particularly new faculty, should be aware of this fact. And messages to this effect should appear on every outgoing email, and on every syllabus.

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Jonathan Barron
"Please don't retaliate or flame me on this: I've been doing extensive research on the matter."

Jonathan-

I absolutely am not flaming you, or even disagreeing. Sounds like sage and sober advice to me. On the other hand, I’m less concerned with legality than I am with sleaziness. Shelby is not asking me to refrain from suing him; if he were, then legality would be at issue. He’s asking me to trust him. I’ve heard nothing but self-aggrandizing crowing from him regarding his conduct. Trust him? I can’t imagine what he could do to earn my trust.

And I repeat my question about the phones. Aren’t they also all linked together through some sort of “server” or other? So, it’s equally sleazy, but it also legal to tap our phones? And have they?

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Jonathan Barron
"Just because the President is saying he's not monitoring now doesnt mean he can't monitor later; and it doesnt mean he can't go back in time and dig up anything he wants if it is still on the server. The USM server is and forever will be tainted. In short, if I am understanding correctly, the administration can "raid" their server at any time and take from it what they so choose no matter what the date may be of the message they choose to read. The server is what is tainted. "

I agree that this is the case and urge all faculty to stop using the USM server for any purpose whatsoever. Get an AOL acct, or some other, and then DO NOT READ YOUR EMAIL via the USM server. As the msg above says, ANYTHING AT ALL THAT YOU RECEIVE OR SEND WHILE USING THE USM LAN to connect to the Internet will be archived on the USM server and thus is readable. Simple enough just to stay off the thing.

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"Has anyone heard anything lately from any member of the PUC? When does the organization next meet, and what will be on its agenda?

Next meeting is Wednesday 3:00-4:30 in Union H. Haven't heard yet about the agenda.

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Podunk U.
" I agree that this is the case and urge all faculty to stop using the USM server for any purpose whatsoever. Get an AOL acct, or some other, and then DO NOT READ YOUR EMAIL via the USM server. As the msg above says, ANYTHING AT ALL THAT YOU RECEIVE OR SEND WHILE USING THE USM LAN to connect to the Internet will be archived on the USM server and thus is readable. Simple enough just to stay off the thing. "

I even have a better idea. Use your USM email for legitimate university business.

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Helpful
"I even have a better idea. Use your USM email for legitimate university business."

On the surface, "Helpful," your comment sounds reasonable. But there is at least one problem: Some "legitimate university business" is not for the eyes of anyone except the sender and the recipient. Not for the eyes of the department chair, nor the dean, nor the vice presidents, nor the provost, nor the president. There are many examples of this. I will cite a simple one: A faculty member who is asked to write a letter of recommendation for a colleague who is applying for a position elsewhere. It is totally legitimate for such a letter to be sent via university email using university computers, printed on university letterhead, and entered into the word-processing system by a university-paid secretary. For some very obvious reasons, however, it would not be proper for the contents of such a confidential letter be read thru computer confiscation. If I were applying for a position at another university, and I was not ready to go public with that fact for whatever reason, I would not be a happy camper if that confidentiality and trust were to be violated by search and seizure of the writer's computer. There are many other behaviors which are perfectly legal, but which are by no means ethical.

Date: May 24, 2004

That leads me to a question, First Ant (or whoever knows) -- if a professor has a personal laptop, is that subject to confiscation? If GS or FG had had a personal computer in their office, would it have been legal for it to be seized and searched without a warrant? Even if you access the USM network and your emails may be captured off the network, what would be the status of your own computer?

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"That leads me to a question, First Ant (or whoever knows) -- if a professor has a personal laptop, is that subject to confiscation? If GS or FG had had a personal computer in their office, would it have been legal for it to be seized and searched without a warrant? Even if you access the USM network and your emails may be captured off the network, what would be the status of your own computer?"

Hi LVN, I know very little about the legal aspects of computer confiscation, so I can't answer your question. But I do know right from wrong. And I do not believe that confiscating the computers of Professors Stringer and Glamser, and reading their contents, was right. Legal? Perhaps. Ethical?

Date: May 24, 2004

Jonathan -

Thanks for the research. I have a question that you may or may not be able to answer. If you use the university server to access a hotmail or yahoo (or whatever) account, can that message be viewed as well?

Thanks! NO QUARTER!

Date: May 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Eagle in Cairo, Egypt
"Jonathan - Thanks for the research. I have a question that you may or may not be able to answer. If you use the university server to access a hotmail or yahoo (or whatever) account, can that message be viewed as well? Thanks! NO QUARTER! "

i believe the answer is yes. ANYTHING that involves the USM network or any connection via the network. if you're calling out (off campus) to an ISP using university phones and a modem, that would NOT be a problem, I don't think.

Date: May 25, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Eagle in Cairo, Egypt
"Jonathan - Thanks for the research. I have a question that you may or may not be able to answer. If you use the university server to access a hotmail or yahoo (or whatever) account, can that message be viewed as well? Thanks! NO QUARTER! "

The answer is yes. Whatever computer you use, from wherever you are, on whatever account if at any point it goes to the USM server USM can and evidently will read it, archive it, and potentially use it.

As to legitimate university business. That is, weirdly, a red herring. First of all, legitimate business concerns annual reviews of faculty, administrators, and assessment of students, including grade appeals. None of that information is typically for public dissemination but, as email on the USM server, it can be. In short, no one according to the university policy, as I understand it, is immune to the president choosing at any time to make them a target of suspicion. Furthermore, all those who write to the target are subject to have their mail read as well.

There really is only one point here: USM loosing whatever stature it may have had left in the larger academic community. If students realize and professors realize that their email is subject to search and seizure at any potential future time they will, I assure you, think twice about coming here. No student would want that, none that I have met. And no professor would willingly "trust" an administration that has already used its ability to access email against faculty.

In short, if there IS ANY SINGLE ISSUE that will debilitate for the long term USM's ability to attract students and faculty it is the fact that under current policy this administration has already accessed email of students and faculty, used it in a case against faculty, and can do so whenver it wishes going back in time if it so chooses.

Who will be recruited in such conditions?

I decides to read someone's mail, then all those who w

Date: May 25, 2004

great post by Anne Wallace