Re: Privacy policy question

["Shamblin, Quinn" <qrs () BU EDU>]

I have noticed ever since I started working in higher-ed years ago, that this sort of skewing is extremely common.

Quinn R Shamblin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Director of Information Security, Boston University
CISM, CISSP, GCFA, PMP  -  O 617-358-6310  M 617-999-7523


-----Original Message-----
From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU] On Behalf Of Valdis 
Kletnieks
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:18 AM
To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Privacy policy question

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:50:21 -0400, "John K. Lerchey" said:

> "Whenever possible and legally permissible, notification must be given 
> to the faculty member whose data are subject to subpoena, search 
> warrant, or order of court prior to compliance therewith, and, 
> whenever possible and legally permissible, sufficient time must be 
> allowed, before intrusion, to allow the faculty member to file a motion to quash. "

Faculty members get time to file a motion to quash, but staff and students don't?
Are you able to share the reasoning there, or is it internal sausage-making that we don't want to know about?